Book contents
- Feeling, Thinking, and Talking
- Feeling, Thinking, and Talking
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Preface
- 1 The Embodiment Perspective
- 2 Homeostasis
- 3 How Language and Conversation Evolved
- 4 Thinking
- 5 Emotion
- 6 Signals
- 7 Context
- 8 Relationships and Groups
- 9 Conversation
- 10 Play
- 11 Metaphor
- 12 Humor and Irony
- 13 Stories
- 14 Media Technology, Social Reality, and Discourse
- 15 Recap
- References
- Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 September 2022
Book contents
- Feeling, Thinking, and Talking
- Feeling, Thinking, and Talking
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Preface
- 1 The Embodiment Perspective
- 2 Homeostasis
- 3 How Language and Conversation Evolved
- 4 Thinking
- 5 Emotion
- 6 Signals
- 7 Context
- 8 Relationships and Groups
- 9 Conversation
- 10 Play
- 11 Metaphor
- 12 Humor and Irony
- 13 Stories
- 14 Media Technology, Social Reality, and Discourse
- 15 Recap
- References
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Feeling, Thinking, and TalkingHow the Embodied Brain Shapes Everyday Communication, pp. 312 - 332Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Abbott, H. P. (2008). The Cambridge introduction to narrative (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Adelman, P. K., and Zajonc, R. B. (1989). Facial efference and the experience of emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 249–280.Google Scholar
Apter, Michael J. (1991). A structural phenomenology of play. In Kerr, John A. and Apter, Michael J., eds., Adult play: A reversal theory approach. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger, pp. 13–30.Google Scholar
Arbib, M. A. (2013). Language, music, and the brain: A mysterious relationship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2010). Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2078–2105.Google Scholar
Attardo, S. (2001). Humorous texts: A semantic and pragmatic analysis. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 589–595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baron-Cohen, S. (2020b). The pattern seekers: A new theory of human invention. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Barrett, L. F. (2017). How emotions are made: The secret life of the brain. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Barrett, L. F. (2020). Seven and a half lessons about the brain. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–609.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 513–562.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W., and Wiemer-Hastings, K. (2005). Situating abstract concepts. In Pecher, D. and Zwaan, R., eds., Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 129–163. Available at: www.psychology.emory.edu/cognition/barsalou/papers/Barsalou_Wiemer-Hastings_chap_2005_abstract_concepts.pdf.Google Scholar
Bateson, P. (2005). The role of play in the evolution of great apes and humans. In Pellegrini, A. D. and Smith, P. K., eds., The nature of play: Great apes and humans. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 13–26.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., and Masicampo, E. J. (2010). Conscious thought is for facilitating social and cultural interactions: How mental simulations serve the animal–culture interface. Psychological Review, 117, 945–971.Google Scholar
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., and Damasio, A. R. (2005). The Iowa Gambling Task and the somatic marker hypothesis: Some questions and answers. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 159–162. https://doi.org/10.1016.Google Scholar
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In Berkowitz, L., ed., Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 6. New York: Academic Press, pp. 1–62.Google Scholar
Beniger, J. R. (1983). Does television enhance the shared symbolic environment? Trends in labeling of editorial cartoons, 1948–1980. American Sociological Review, 48, 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B., and Wheeler, K. (2005). Sentence understanding engages motor processes. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B., and Wheeler, K. (2010). Grammatical aspect and mental simulation. Brain & Language, 112, 150–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergen, B. K. (2012). Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Berger, C. R. (1979). Beyond initial interaction: Uncertainty, understanding, and the development of interpersonal relationships. In Giles, H. and St. Clair, N., eds., Language and social psychology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 122–144.Google Scholar
Berger, C. R., and Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99–112.Google Scholar
Berger, P. L. (1979). The heretical imperative: Contemporary possibilities of religious affirmation. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Berger, P. L., and Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (2009). Adam’s tongue: How humans made language, how language made humans. New York: Hill & Wang.Google Scholar
Billig, M. (2005). Laughter and ridicule: Towards a social critique of humor. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Birdwhistell, R. (1970). Kinesics and context: Essays on body motion communication. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Blow, C. M. (2021). History can be erased. It often has been. New York Times (on-line), May 19. www.nytimes.com/2021/05/19/opinion/capitol-riot-tulsa-massacre.html.Google Scholar
Borghi, A. M., Glenberg, A. M., and Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Putting words in perspective. Memory and Cognition, 32, 863–873.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L., and Prinz, J. (2008). What thoughts are made of. In Semin, G. R. and Smith, E. R., eds., Embodied grounding: Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 98–115.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L., and Ramscar, M. (2003). Guilt by association: Gleaning meaning from contextual co-occurrence. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Borregine, K. L., and Kaschak, M. P. (2006). The action-sentence compatibility effect: It’s all in the timing. Cognitive Science, 30, 1097–1112.Google Scholar
Boulenger, V., Hauk, O., and Pulvermüller, F. (2009). Grasping ideas with the motor system: Semantic somototopy in idiom comprehension. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 1905–1914.Google Scholar
Brône, G., and Feyaerts, K. (2004). Assessing the SSTH and GTVH: A view from cognitive linguistics. Humor – International Journal of Humor Research, 17, 361–372.Google Scholar
Brown, P., and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, J. (2002). Making stories: Law, literature, life. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Google Scholar
Brunvand, J. H. (1981). The vanishing hitchhiker: American urban legends and their meanings. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Burgoon, J. K., Guerrero, L. K., and Floyd, K. (2016). Nonverbal communication. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Burgoon, J. K., and Hale, J. L. (1984). The fundamental topoi of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 193–214.Google Scholar
Cabeza, R., Prince, S. E., Daselaar, S. M., Greenberg, D. L., Budde, M., Dolcos, F., and Rubin, D. C. (2004). Brain activity during episodic retrieval of autobiographical and laboratory events: An fMRI study using a novel photo paradigm. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(9), 1583–1594.Google Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T., and Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T., Priester, J. R., and Berntson, G. G. (1993). Rudimentary determinants of attitudes: II. Arm flexion and extension have differential effects on attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 5–17. www.dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.5Google Scholar
Callaway, E. (2014). Homo erectus made world’s oldest doodle 500,000 years ago. Nature News. doi:10.1038/nature.2014.16477. S2CID 164153158.Google Scholar
Calvert, G. A., and Campbell, R. (2003). Reading speech from still and moving faces: The neural substrates of visible speech. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 57–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cameron, L. J., Principal Investigator (2006). Procedure for metaphor analysis. The metaphor analysis project. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University.Google Scholar
Cameron, L. J. (2007). Patterns of metaphor use in reconciliation talk. Discourse and Society, 18, 197–222.Google Scholar
Cameron, L. J., and Deignan, A. (2003). Using large and small corpora to investigate tuning devices around metaphor in spoken discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 18, 149–160.Google Scholar
Cameron, L., and Maslen, R. eds. (2010). Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and the humanities. London: Eqinox, pp. 161–179.Google Scholar
Cameron, L., Maslen, R., and Low, G. (2010). Finding systematicity in metaphor use. In Cameron, L. and Maslen, R., eds., Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and the humanities. London: Eqinox, pp. 116–146.Google Scholar
Cantor, J. R., Bryant, J., and Zillmann, D. (1974). Enhancement of humor appreciation by transferred excitation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 812–821.Google Scholar
Cantor, J. R., and Zillmann, D. (1973). The effect of affective state and emotional arousal on music appreciation. Journal of General Psychology, 89, 97–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cantor, J. R., Zillmann, D., and Bryant, J. (1975). Enhancement of experienced sexual arousal in response to erotic stimuli through mis attribution of unrelated residual excitation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 69–75.Google Scholar
Cappella, J. N. (1993). The facial feedback hypothesis in human interaction: Review and speculation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12, 13–29.Google Scholar
Carroll, L. (1871). “Jabberwocky.” From Through the looking-glass, and what Alice found there.Google Scholar
Carter, R. (2004). Language and creativity: The art of common talk. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Casasanto, D., and Boroditsky, L. (2008). Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106, 579–593.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casasanto, D., and Gijssels, T. (2015). What makes a metaphor an embodied metaphor? Quellenangabe: Linguistics Vanguard. ISSN (Online) 2199-174X, doi: 10.1515/lingvan-2014-1015, January 2015.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (2012). From thoughts to sounds. In Gee, J. P. and Handford, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis. New York: Routledge, pp. 356–368.Google Scholar
Chaiken, S. (1979). Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 1387–1397.Google Scholar
Cheney, D. L., and Seyfarth, R. M. (1985). Vervet monkey alarm calls: Manipulation through shared information? Behaviour, 94, 150–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiappe, D. L., and Kennedy, J. M. (2001). Literal bases for metaphor and simile. Metaphor and Symbol, 16, 249–276.Google Scholar
Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clay, Z., and Zuberbuhler, K. (2014). Vocal communication and social awareness in chimpanzees and bonobos. In Dor, D., Knight, C. and Lewis, J., eds., The social origins of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 105–125.Google Scholar
Coates, J. (2007). Talk in a play frame: More on laughter and intimacy. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 29–49.Google Scholar
Colombetti, G. (2014). The feeling body: Affective science meets the enactive mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, R., Bird, G., Catmur, C., Press, C., and Heyes, C. (2014). Mirror neurons: From origin to function. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(2), 177–192. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X13000903Google Scholar
Cooper, L. A., and Shepard, R. N. (1973). Chronometric studies of the rotation of mental images. In Chase, W. G., ed., Visual information processing. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Corballis, M. C. (2004). The origins of modernity: Was autonomous speech the critical factor? Psychological Review, 111, 543–552.Google Scholar
Coulson, S (2001). Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crivelli, C., and Fridlund, A. J. (2018). Facial displays are tools of social influence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 388–399.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1980). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349–367.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., and Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic features. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10/11), 1545–1579.Google Scholar
Curtis, M. E., and Bharucha, J. J. (2010). The minor third communicates sadness in speech, mirroring its use in music. Emotion, 10(3), 335–348. www.doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1037/a0017928.Google Scholar
Damasio, A. R. (1996). The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 351(1346), 1413–1420. www.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1996.0125.Google Scholar
Damasio, A. R. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. New York: Harcourt Brace & Co.Google Scholar
Davis, J. I., Senghas, A., Brandt, F., & Ochsner, K. N. (2010). The effects of BOTOX injections on emotional experience. Emotion, 10, 433–440. doi: 10.1037/a0018690Google Scholar
Dediu, D., and Levinson, S. C. (2014). The time frame of the emergence of modern language and its implications. In Dor, D., Knight, C. and Lewis, J., eds., The social origins of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 105–125.Google Scholar
Demjén, Z. (2016). Laughing at cancer: Humour, empowerment, solidarity and coping online. Journal of Pragmatics, 101, 18–30.Google Scholar
Demjén, Z. (2018). Complexity theory and conversational humour: Tracing the birth and decline of a running joke in an online cancer support community. Journal of Pragmatics, 133, 93–104.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (2017). From bacteria to Bach and back: The evolution of minds. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
DeRuiter, J. P., Mitterer, H., and Enfield, N. J. (2006). Projecting the end of a speaker’s turn: A cognitive cornerstone of conversation. Language, 82, 515–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desai, R. H., Binder, J. R., Conant, L. L., Mano, Q., R., and Seidenberg, M. S. (2012). The neural career of sensorimotor metaphors. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 2376–2386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dessalles, J-L. (2014). Why talk? In Dor, D., Knight, C. and Lewis, J., eds., The social origins of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 284–296.Google Scholar
Di Paolo, E. A., Rohde, M., and De Jaegher, H. (2010). Horizons for the enactive mind: Values, social interaction, and play. In Stewart, J., Gapenne, O. and Di Paolo, E. A., eds., Enaction: Toward a new paradigm for cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT, pp. 33–87.Google Scholar
di Pellegrino, G., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., and Rizzolatti, G. (1992). Understanding motor events: A neurophysiological study. Experimental Brain Research, 91(1), 176–180.Google Scholar
Dor, D. (2014). The instruction of imagination: Language and its evolution as a communication technology. In Dor, D., Knight, C. and Lewis, J., eds., The social origins of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dor, D. (2014). The instruction of imagination: Language and its evolution as a communication technology. In Dor, D., Knight, C. and Lewis, J., eds., The social origins of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 318–324.Google Scholar
Douthat, R. (2017). Who are we? New York Times, Feb. 4. www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/opinion/who-are-we.html.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. (1996). Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. (2003). The social brain: Mind, language, and society in evolutionary perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology, 32, 163–181.Google Scholar
Dunn, B. D., Dalgleish, T., and Lawrence, A. D. (2006). The somatic marker hypothesis: A critical evaluation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30, 239–271.Google Scholar
Dutton, D., and Aron, A. (1974). Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of high anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 510–517.Google Scholar
Ehrsson, H. H., Geyer, S., and Naito, E. (2003). Imagery of voluntary movement of fingers, toes, and tongue activates corresponding body-part-specific motor representations. Journal of Neurophysiology, 90, 3304–3316.Google Scholar
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1970). Ethology: The biology of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, E. (1980). The printing press as an agent of change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ekman, P., and Cordaro, D. T. (2011). What is meant by calling emotions basic? Emotion Review, 3, 364–370.Google Scholar
Ekman, P., and Friesen, W. V. (1971). Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 124–129.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2017). How we talk: The inner workings of conversation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J., and Sidnell, J. (2014). Language presupposes an enchronic infrastructure for social interaction. In Dor, D., Knight, C. and Lewis, J., eds., The social origins of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 92–104.Google Scholar
Enticott, P. G., Johnston, P. J., Herring, S. E., Hoy, K. E., and Fitzgerald, P. B. (2008). Mirror neuron activation is associated with facial emotion processing. Neuropsychologia, 46, 2851–2854.Google Scholar
Epstein, R. H. (2018). Aroused: The history of hormones and how they control just about everything. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Esmaeili, P., Akhavan, B., and Amjad, F. A. (2015). Metaphorically speaking: Embodied conceptualization and emotion language in Tim O’Brien’s The things they carried. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 4, 137–146.Google Scholar
Everett, D. L. (2017). How language began: The story of humanity’s greatest invention. New York: Liveright.Google Scholar
Everts, E. (2003). Identifying a particular family humor style: A sociolinguistic discourse analysis. Humor: International Journal of Humor Studies, 16, 369–412.Google Scholar
Fagen, R. (1995). Animal play, games of angels, biology, and Brian. In Pellegrini, A. D., ed., The future of play theory: A multidisciplinary inquiry into the contributions of Brian Sutton-Smith. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 23–44.Google Scholar
Farr, R. M., and Moscovici, S. (1984). Social representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., and Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fausey, C. M., and Boroditsky, L. (2010). Subtle linguistic cues influence perceived blame and financial liability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 644–650.Google Scholar
Fausey, C. M., and Boroditsky, L. (2011). Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eye-witness memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 157.Google Scholar
Feldman, J. A. (2006). From molecule to metaphor: A neural theory of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fine, G. A., and DeSoucey, M. (2005). Joking cultures: Humor themes as social regulation in group life. Humor, 18–1(2005), 1–22.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, M. A., and Ritchie, L. D. (1994). Communication schemata within the family: Multiple perspectives on family interaction. Human Communication Research, 20(3), March, 275–301.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, M. A., Vance, L., and Witterman, H. (1984). Interpersonal communication in the casual interaction of marital partner. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 3, 81095.Google Scholar
Ford, T. E., Richardson, K., and Petit, W. E. (2015). Disparagement humor and prejudice: Contemporary theory and research. Humor, 28, 171–186.Google Scholar
Förster, J., and Strack, F. (1997). Motor actions in retrieval of valenced information: A motor congruence effect. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 1419–1427. www.doi.org/10.2466/pms.1997.85.3f.1419.Google Scholar
French, J. R. P. Jr., and Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In Cartwright, D., ed., Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, pp. 150–167.Google Scholar
Fuller, R. B. (1961). Tensegrity. Portfolio and Art News Annual (4), 112–127, 144, 148.Google Scholar
Fuller, R. B. (1982) [1975]. Synergetics: Explorations in the geometry of thinking. I. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-02-065320-2.Google Scholar
Furley, P., Memmert, D., and Heller, C. (2010). The dark side of visual awareness in sport: Inattentional blindness in a real-world basketball task. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 1327–1337. www.doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.3758/APP.72.5.1327.Google Scholar
Galati, D., Scherer, K. R., and Ricci-Bitti, P. E. (1997). Voluntary facial expression of emotion: Comparing congenitally blind with normally sighted encoders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1363–1379. www.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1363.Google Scholar
Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., and Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119(Pt 2), 593–609.Google Scholar
Gallese, V., and Goldman, A. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 493–501.Google Scholar
Gendron, M., Roberson, D., van der Vyver, J. M., and Barrett, L. F. (2014). Perceptions of emotion from facial expressions are not culturally universal: Evidence from a remote culture. Emotion, 14(2), 251–262. www.doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1037/a0036052.Google Scholar
Gentner, D., and Bowdle, B. F. (2001). Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16, 223–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerrig, R. J. (1993). Experiencing narrative worlds: On the psychological activities of reading. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Giapraki, M., Moraitou, D., Pezirkianidis, C., and Stalikas, A. (2020). Humor in aging: Is it able to enhance wellbeing in community dwelling older adults? Psychology: The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society, 25, 128–150.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (2006). Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind and Language, 21, 434–458.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (2008). Metaphor and thought: The state of the art. In Gibbs, R. W. Jr., ed., The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–16.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr., and Boers, E. (2005). Metaphoric processing of allegorical poetry. In Maalej, Z., ed., Metaphor and culture. Tunis, Tunisia: University of Manouba Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R., Gould, J., and Andric, M. (2005–2006). Imagining metaphorical actions: Embodied simulations make the impossible plausible. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 25, 221–238.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr., and Izett, C. D. (2005). Irony as persuasive communication. In Colston, H. L. and Katz, A. N., eds., Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 131–152.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr., and Matlock, T. (2008). Metaphor, imagination, and simulation: Psycholinguistic evidence. In Gibbs, R. W. Jr., ed., The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 161–176.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, S., and Jablonka, E. (2014). Memory, imagination, and the evolution of modern language. In Dor, D., Knight, C. and Lewis, J., eds., The social origins of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 105–125.Google Scholar
Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giora, R., Balaban, N., Fein, O., and Alkabets, I. (2004). Negation as positivity in disguise. In Colston, H. L. and Katz, A., eds., Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 233–258.Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. M. (2010). Embodiment as a unifying perspective for psychology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1, 586–596. www.doi.org/10.1002/wcs.55Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. M., and Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558–565.Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. M., Sato, M., Cattaneo, L., Palumbo, D., and Buccini, G. (2008). Processing abstract language modulates motor system activity. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 905–919.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goatly, A. P. (2007). Washing the brain: Metaphor and hidden ideology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2018). Primates, cephalopods, and the evolution of communication. In Seyfarth, R. M. and Cheney, D. L., eds., The social origins of language. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 102–120.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Greene, J. D. (2014). Beyond point-and-shoot morality: Why cognitive (Neuro)science matters for ethics. Ethics, 124(4), 695–726.Google Scholar
Green, M. C. (2004). Transportation into narrative worlds: The role of prior knowledge and perceived realism. Discourse Processes, 38, 247–266.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P., ed., Syntax and semantics (vol. 9): Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Griffiths, P., and Scarantino, A. (2009). Emotions in the wild: The situated perspective on emotion. In Robbins, P. and Aydede, M., eds., The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 437–453.Google Scholar
Gruner, C. W. (1997). The game of humor: A comprehensive theory of why we laugh. London: Transaction.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1998). Things and relations: Regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. In Martin, J. R. and Veel, R., eds., Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 185–237.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London and New York: Cassel.Google Scholar
Halpern, A. R., and Zatorre, R. J. (1999). When that tune runs through your head: a PET investigation of auditory imagery for familiar melodies. Cerebral Cortex, 9, 697–704.Google Scholar
Havas, D. A., Glenberg, A. M., Gutowski, K. A., Lucarelli, M. J., and Davidson, R. J. (2010). Cosmetic use of botulinum toxin-A affects processing of emotional language. Psychological Science, 21(7), 895–900. www.doi.org/10.1177/0956797610374742.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. (2021): A thousand brains: A new theory of intelligence. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Heyes, C., Bang, D., Shea, N., Frith, C. D., and Fleming, S. M. (2020). Knowing ourselves together: The cultural origins of metacognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24, 349–362. www.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.02.007.Google Scholar
Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Holmes, J., and Marra, M. (2002). Over the edge? Subversive humor between colleagues and friends. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 15, 65–87.Google Scholar
Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo Ludens; A study of the play-element in culture. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Hurley, M. M., Dennett, D. C., and Adams, R. B. Jr. (2011). Inside jokes: Using humor to reverse-engineer the mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, I. (1996). Confrontation talk. Arguments, asymmetries and power on talk radio. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ijzerman, H., and Semin, G. R. (2009). The thermometer of social relations mapping social proximity on temperature. Psychological Science, 20(10), 1214–1220.Google Scholar
Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
James, W. (1890/1981). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jamrozik, A., McQuire, M., Cardillo, E. R., and Chatterjee, A. (2016). Metaphor: Bridging embodiment to abstraction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 1080–1089. www.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0861-0.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A., eds., Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 201–208.Google Scholar
Kaschak, M. P., and Borregine, K. L. (2008). Is long-term structural priming affected by patterns of experience with individual verbs? Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 862–878.Google Scholar
Kaup, B., Lüdtke, J., and Zwaan, R. A. (2006). Processing negated sentences with contradictory predicates: Is a door that is open mentally closed? Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1033–1050.Google Scholar
Kaup, B., Yaxley, R. H., Madden, C. J., Zwaan, R. A., and Lüdtke, J. (2007). Experiential simlations of negated tyext information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 976–990.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (2014). The ‘poly-modalic’ nature of utterances and its relevance for inquiring into language origins. In Dor, D., Knight, C. and Lewis, J., eds., The social origins of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 67–76.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. H., and Torreira, F. (2015). The timing and construction of preference: A quantitative study. Discourse Processes, 52, 255–289.Google Scholar
Keysar, B., Lin, S., and Barr, D. J. (2003). Limits on theory of mind use in adults. Cognition, 89(1), 25–41.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (2000). Metaphor comprehension: A computational theory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 257–266.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (2008). How the mind computes the meaning of metaphor: A simulation based on LSA. In Gibbs, R. W. Jr., ed., The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 129–142.Google Scholar
Knight, C., and Lewis, J. (2014). Vocal deception, laughter, and the linguistic significance of reverse dominance. In Dor, D., Knight, C. and Lewis, J., eds., The social origins of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 105–125.Google Scholar
Koch, C. (2019). The feeling of life itself: Why consciousness is widespread but can’t be computed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Krippendorff, K. (2017). Three concepts to retire, Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(1), 92–99, doi: 10.1080/23808985.2017.1291281Google Scholar
Krout, M. H. (1954a). An experimental attempt to determine the significance of unconscious manual symbolic movements. The Journal of General Psychology, 51, 121–152. doi: 10.1080/00221309.1954.9920210.Google Scholar
Krout, M. H. (1954b). An experimental attempt to produce unconscious manual symbolic movements. The Journal of General Psychology, 51, 93–120. doi: 10.1080/00221309.1954.9920209.Google Scholar
Krzeszowski, T. P. (2020). Metaphors we communicate by. Discourses on Culture, 13, 25–50. www.dyskursy.san.edu.pl/docs/dyskursy13.pdf#page=25.Google Scholar
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (2013). The language of life and death: The transformation of experience in oral narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W., and Waletsky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis. In Helm, J., ed., Essays on the verbal and visual arts. Seattle: University of Washington Press, pp. 12–44.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1996). Moral politics: What conservatives know that liberals don’t. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (2014). Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: Metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers of Human Neuroscience, 16 December.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., and Kövecses, Z. (1987). The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. In Holland, D. and Quinn, N., eds., Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 195–221.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., and Nuñez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
LaMarre, H. L., Landreville, K. D., and Beam, M. A. (2009). The irony of satire: Political ideology and the motivation to see what you want to see in The Colbert Report. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 14, 212–231.Google Scholar
Lampert, M. D., & Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (2006). Risky laughter: Teasing and self-directed joking among male and female friends. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 51–72.Google Scholar
Landau, M. J., Meier, B. P., and Keefer, L. A. (2010). A metaphor-enriched social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1045–1067. doi: 10.1037/a0020970Google Scholar
Landauer, T. K., and Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240.Google Scholar
Lear, E. (1871). The owl and the pussycat. In Nonsense Songs, Stories, Botany, and Alphabets. In the public domain; original publication data not available.Google Scholar
Lee, D. (1986). Language, children & society: An introduction to linguistics & language development. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (2005). Politeness: Is there an East–West Divide? Journal of Foreign Languages, 6, 1–30.Google Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., and Allen, J. A. (2014). How fun are your meetings? Investigating the relationship between humor patterns in team interactions and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1278–1287.Google Scholar
Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., and Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the “overjustification” hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(1), 129–137.Google Scholar
Level, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. (2014). BaYaka Pygmy multi-modal and mimetic communication traditions. In Dor, D., Knight, C. and Lewis, J., eds., The social origins of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 77–91.Google Scholar
Lindquist, K. A., Wager, T. D., Kober, H., Bliss-Moreau, E., and Barrett, L. F. (2012). The brain basis of emotion: A meta-analytic review. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 121–202. doi:10.1017/S0140525X11000446.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2019). Metaphors in the mind: Sources of variation in embodied metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lucariello, J. M., Durand, T. M., and Yarnell, L. (2007). Social versus intrapersonal ToM: Social ToM is a cognitive strength for low-and middle-SES children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28(4), 285–297.Google Scholar
Malaby, T. (2006). Parlaying value: Capital in and beyond virtual worlds. Games and Culture, 1, 141–162.Google Scholar
Malaby, T. (2007). Beyond play: A new approach to games. Social Science Research Network, id922456.Google Scholar
Mao, F. (2010). On cognition and function of grammatical metaphor. A dissertation presented for the degree Doctor of Philosophy. Shanghai International Studies University.Google Scholar
Marshall, G. D., and Zimbardo, P. G. (1979). Affective consequences of inadequately explained physiological arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 970–988.Google Scholar
Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.Google Scholar
Matlock, T. (2004). Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory and Cognition, 32, 1389–1400.Google Scholar
Maturana, H. R., and Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis: The organization of living. In Maturana, H. R. and Varela, F. J., eds., Autopoiesis and cognition. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 73–155.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (2012). How language began: Gesture and speech in human evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McWhorter, J. (2018). Linguistics and pragmatics. In Seyfarth, R. M. and Cheney, D. L., eds., The social origins of language. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 37–45.Google Scholar
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meier, B. P., and Dionne, S. (2009). Downright sexy: Verticality, implicit power, and perceived physical attractiveness. Social Cognition, 27(6), 883–892.Google Scholar
Mezzacappa, E. S., Katkin, E. S., and Palmer, S. N. (1999). Epinephrine, arousal, and emotion: A new look at two-factor theory. Cognition and Emotion, 13, 181–199.Google Scholar
Miller, D. T. and McFarland, C. (1991). When social comparison goes awry: The case of pluralistic ignorance. In Suls, J. and Wills, T. A., eds., Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, pp. 287–313.Google Scholar
Montpare, J. M. (1995). The impact of variations in height on young children’s impressions of men and women. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 19, 31–47.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1961). La psychanalyse: Son image et son public. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Moyer-Gusé, E. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages. Communication Theory, 18, 407–425.Google Scholar
Müller, C., and Cienki, A. (2009). Words, gestures, and beyond: Forms of multimodal metaphor in the use of spoken language. In Forceville, C. J. and Urios-Aparisi, E., eds., Multi-modal metaphor. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 297–328.Google Scholar
Muntigl, P., and Turnbull, W. (1998). Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 225–256.Google Scholar
Musolff, A. (2004). Metaphor and political discourse. Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
Musolff, A. (2006). Metaphor scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 21, 23–38.Google Scholar
Mutz, D. (2016). Harry Potter and the Deathly Donald. PS: Political Science & Politics, 49(4), 722–729. doi:10.1017/S1049096516001633Google Scholar
Mutz, D. C. (2007). Effects of “In-Your-Face” television discourse on perceptions of a legitimate opposition. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 621–635.Google Scholar
Mutz, D. C., and Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Nabi, R. L., Moyer-Gusé, E., and Byrne, S. (2007). All joking aside: A serious investigation into the persuasive effect of funny social issue messages. Communication Monographs, 74, 29–54.Google Scholar
Neal, D. T., and Chartrand, T. L. (2011). Embodied emotion perception: Amplifying and dampening facial feedback modulates emotion perception accuracy. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(6), 673–678. www.doi.org/10.1177/1948550611406138.Google Scholar
Newcomb, T. M. (1968). Interpersonal balance. In Abelson, R. P., et al., eds., Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook. Chicago: Rand McNally, pp. 28–51.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R. (1993). Conversational joking: Humor in everyday talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R. (1997). Twice-told tales: Collaborative narration of familiar stories. Language in Society, 26, 199–220.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R. (2003). Issues in conversational joking. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1333–1359.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R. (2010). Conversational narrative: Storytelling in everyday talk. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R., and Spitz, A. (2010). The interplay of humor and conflict in conversation and scripted humorous performance. Humor, 23, 83–111.Google Scholar
Obama, B. (2008). A more perfect union. Constitution Center, Philadelphia, PA, March 18, 2008.Google Scholar
Obama, B. (2013). Remarks by the President on climate change at Georgetown University. www.whitehouse.gov.Google Scholar
Oberman, L. M., Winkielman, P., and Vilayanur, S. (2007). Face to face: Blocking facial mimicry can selectively impair recognition of emotional expressions. Social Neuroscience, 2, 167–178.Google Scholar
Ong, W. (2002). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pepperberg, I. M. (2006). Cognitive and communicative abilities of grey parrots. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 100, 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D. D. (2002). On incongruities and logical inconsistencies in humor: The delicate balance. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 15, 155–168.Google Scholar
Perner, J., and Wimmer, H. (1985). “John thinks that Mary thinks that …” attribution of second-order beliefs by 5- to 10-year-old children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 39(3), 437–471.Google Scholar
Petri, A. (2020). Relax and do not panic. Donald Trump is in charge. Washington Post (on-line), September 11, 2020. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/11/relax-do-not-panic-donald-trump-is-charge/. Accessed September 12, 2020.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion – classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown.Google Scholar
Piaget, J., and Inhelder, B. (1967). The child’s conception of space. New York: Norton. (Original work published 1948).Google Scholar
Plester, J. A., and Sayers, J. (2007). “Taking the piss”: Functions of banter in the IT industry. Humor, 20, 157–187.Google Scholar
Pragglejaz Group (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22, 1–39.Google Scholar
Premack, D., and Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(4), 515–526.Google Scholar
Price, V., Tewksbury, D., and Powers, E. (1997). Switching trains of thought: The impact of news frames on reader’s cognitive responses. Communication Research, 24, 481.Google Scholar
Prinz, J. J. (2007). The emotional construction of morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Progovac, J. E. (2018). Fluency effects in human language. In Seyfarth, R. M. and Cheney, D. L., eds., The social origins of language. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 46–61.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, F. (1999). Words in the brain’s language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(2), 253–279. DOI: www.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X9900182X.Google Scholar
Raskin, J. D., & Attardo, S. (1994). Non-literalness and non-bona-fide in language: An approach to formal and computational treatments of humor. Pragmatics & Cognition, 2(1), 31–69.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68, 939–967.Google Scholar
Reddy, M. J. (1993). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Ortony, A., ed., Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 164–201.Google Scholar
Reps, P. (1957). Zen flesh, Zen bones: A collection of Zen and pre-Zen writings. New York: Doubleday Anchor.Google Scholar
Rinn, W. E. (1991). Neuropsychology of facial expression. In Feldman, R. S. and Rimé, B., eds., Fundamentals of non-verbal communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–30.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D. (1986). Shannon - and Weaver: Unravelling the paradox of information. Communication Research, 13(2), 278–298.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D. (1991). Communication concepts 2: Information. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D. (2003a). Categories and similarities: A note on circularity. Metaphor and Symbol, 18, 49–53.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D. (2003b). “ARGUMENT IS WAR” – Or is it a game of chess? Multiple meanings in the analysis of implicit metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 18, 125–146.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D. (2003c). Uncertainty and the fragmentation of knowledge. In Dervin, B. and Chaffee, S., eds., Communication: A different kind of horse race. Essays honoring Richard F. Carter. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D. (2003d). Statistical probability as a metaphor for epistemological probability. Metaphor and Symbol, 18, 1–12.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D. (2004) Lost in “Conceptual Space”: Metaphors of conceptual integration. Metaphor and Symbol, 19, 31–50.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D. (2005). Frame-shifting in humor and irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 20, 275–294.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D. (2006). Context and connection in metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D. (2008). Gateshead revisited: The integrative function of ambiguous metaphors in a tricky political situation. Metaphor and Symbol, 23, 24–49.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D. (2009a). Relevance and simulation in metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 24, 249–262.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D. (2009b). Distributed cognition and play in the quest for the double helix. Ch. 11. In Pishwa, H., ed., Language and social cognition: Expression of the social mind. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 289–323.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D. (2010). “Everybody goes down”: Metaphors, stories, and simulations in conversations. Metaphor and Symbol, 25, 123–143.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D. (2011a). “Justice is blind”: A model for analyzing metaphor transformations and narratives in actual discourse. Metaphor and the Social World, 1, 70–89.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D. (2011b). Why the block is the block: Reinforcing community through casual conversation. Metaphor and the Social World, 1, 240–261.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D. (2011c). “You’re lying to Jesus!” Humor and play in a discussion about homelessness. Humor, 24, 481–511.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D. (2012). Metaphor and stories in discourse about personal and social change. In Wagoner, B., Jensen, E. and Oldmeadow, J., eds., Culture and social change: Transforming society through the power of ideas. London: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D. (2014). “Born on third base”: Stories, simulations, and metaphor comprehension. Presented at the annual conference of Researching and Analyzing Metaphor, Cagliari, Italy.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D. (2017). Metaphorical stories in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D. (2019). Reclaiming a unified American Narrative: Lexical, grammatical, and story metaphors in a discussion of polarized identities. Metaphor and the Social World, 9, 242–262.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D. (2021a). The “thinking meme” meme: Person and organism metaphors in Daniel Dennett’s theory of cultural evolution. Metaphor and the Social World, 11(1), 122–144. ISSN 2210-4070 | E‑ISSN 2210-4097.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D. (2021b). The “glass ceiling” of CMT: Homeostasis, codes, and metaphor. Unpublished ms., submitted.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D., and Cameron, L. (2014). Open hearts or smoke and mirrors: Metaphorical framing and frame conflicts in a public meeting. Metaphor and Symbol, 29, 204-223.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D. and Dyhouse, V. (2008). FINE AS FROG’S HAIR: Three models for the development of meaning in figurative language. Metaphor and Symbol, 23, 85–107.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D., Feliciano, A., and Sparks, A. (2018). Rhetorical confinement, contrasting metaphors, and cultural polarities: “Yes we can” meets “Carnage in the cities.” Metaphor and the Social World, 8(2), 248–267.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D., and Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Family communication patterns: Measuring intra-personal perceptions of inter-personal relationships. Communication Research, 17(4), 523–544.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D., and Negrea-Busuioc, E. (2014). “Now everyone knows I’m a serial killer.” Spontaneous intentionality in conversational metaphor and storytelling. Metaphor and The Social World, 4, 171–195.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D., and Schell, C. (2009). “The ivory tower” on an “unstable foundation”: Playful language, humor, and metaphor in the negotiation of scientists’ identities. Metaphor and Symbol, 24, 90–104.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D., and Thomas, M. (2015). A “glowing marble”: “brushed with clouds” or “parched, scorched, and washed away”? Obama’s use of contrasting metaphors and stories in framing climate change. Metaphor and the Social World, 5, 1–19.Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D., and Zhu, M. (2015). “Nixon stonewalled the investigation”: Potential contributions of grammatical metaphor to conceptual metaphor theory and analysis. Metaphor and Symbol, 30, 118–136.Google Scholar
Rizzolatti, G., and Arbib, M. (1998). Language within our grasp. Trends in Neurosciences, 21, 188–194.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. H. (1975). Cognitive representation of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104(3), 192–233.Google Scholar
Rozin, p., Lowery, L., Imada, S., and Haidt, J. (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 574–586.Google Scholar
Rutlede, L. L., and Hupka, R. B. (1985). The facial feedback hypothesis: Methodological concerns and new supporting evidence. Motivation and Emotion, 9, 219–240.Google Scholar
Sato, M., Schafer, A. J., and Bergen, B. K. (2015). Metaphor priming in sentence production: Concrete pictures affect abstract language production. Acta Psychologica, 156, 136–142. www.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.09.010.Google Scholar
Sauter, D. A., Eisner, F., Ekman, P., and Scott, S. K. (2015). Emotional vocalizations are recognized across cultures regardless of the valence of distractors. Psychological Science, 26, 354–356.Google Scholar
Schachter, S., and Singer, J. (1962). Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychological Review, 69, 379–399.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C., and Abelson, R. P. (1995). Knowledge and memory: The real story. In Wyer, R. S. Jr., ed., Knowledge and memory: The real story. Advances in Social Cognition, Vol. VIII. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 1–86.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C., and Berman, T. R. (2002). The pervasive role of stories in knowledge and action. In Green, M. C., Strange, J. J. & Brock, T. C., eds., Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 287–314.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., and Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1985). Everyday argument: The organisation of diversity in talk. In Van Dijk, T. A., ed., Handbook of discourse analysis. London: Academic Press, vol. 3, pp. 35–46.Google Scholar
Schilperoord, J., and Maes, A. (2009). Visual metaphoric conceptualization in editorial cartoons. In Forceville, C. J. and Urios-Aparisi, E., eds., Multi-modal metaphor. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 213–240.Google Scholar
Schnurr, S., and Chan, A. (2011). When laughter is not enough. Responding to teasing and self-denigrating humour at work. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 20–35.Google Scholar
Schön, D. (1993). Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem solving in social policy. In Ortony, A., ed., Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schubert, T. W., Waldzus, S., and Seibt, B. (2008). The embodiment of power and communalism in space and bodily contact. In Semin, G. R. and Smith, E. R., eds., Embodied grounding: Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 160–183.Google Scholar
Scott, J. C. (2017). Against the grain: A deep history of the earliest states. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York, London: Free Press.Google Scholar
Seligman, M. E. P., Railton, P., Baumeister, R. F., and Sripada, C. (2016). Homo prospectus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Seyfarth, R. M., and Cheney, D. L. (2018). The social origins of language. In Seyfarth, R. M. and Cheney, D. L., eds., The social origins of language. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 9–33.Google Scholar
Shannon, C. (1948, July & October). The mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423, 623–656.Google Scholar
Shannon, C., and Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Shanton, K., and Goldman, A. (2010). Simulation theory. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(4), 527–538.Google Scholar
Shepard, R. N., and Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701–703.Google Scholar
Smith, C. (2021). We mourn for all we do not know. The Atlantic Monthly, 327(2), 28–41.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (2000). An objection to the memetic approach to culture. In Aunger, R., ed., Darwinizing culture: The status of memetics as a science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 163–174.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1986, 1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Spivey, M. J., and Geng, J. J. (2001). Oculomotor mechanisms activated by imagery and memory: Eye movements to absent objets. Psychological Research, 65, 235–241.Google Scholar
Stanfield, R. A., & Zwaan, R. A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12, 153–156.Google Scholar
Steen, G. (2015). Developing, testing and interpreting Deliberate Metaphor Theory. Journal of Pragmatics. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.013.Google Scholar
Steen, G. S., Reijnierse, W. G., and Burgers, C. (2013). When do natural language metaphors influence reasoning? A follow-up study to Thibodeau and Boroditsky. PLOS One. www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0113536.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2010). An overview of the question-response system in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2772–2781. DOI:10.106/j.pragma.2010.04.0111.Google Scholar
Stohr, K. (2017). THE STONE: Our new age of contempt. New York Times on-line, Jan. 23. www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/opinion/our-new-age-of-contempt.html.Google Scholar
Strack, F., Martin, L. L., & Stepper, S. (1985). The facial feedback hypothesis: Methodological concerns and new supporting evidence. Motivation and Emotion, 9, 219–240.Google Scholar
Strack, F., Martin, L. L., & Stepper, S. (1988). Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of the human smile: A nonobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 768–777. www.dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768.Google Scholar
Sutton-Smith, B. (1995). Conclusion: The persuasive rhetorics of play. In Pellegrini, A. D., ed., The future of play theory: A multidisciplinary inquiry into the contributions of Brian Sutton-Smith. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 275–296.Google Scholar
Tabossi, P. (1989). What’s in a context? In Gorfein, D. S., ed., Resolving semantic ambiguity. Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp. 25–39.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1991). What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In Tannen, D., ed., 1993. Framing in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Ch. 1, pp. 14–56.Google Scholar
Tassinary, L. G., and Cacioppo, J. T. (1992). Unobservable facial actions and emotion. Psychological Science, 3, 28–33.Google Scholar
Teng, N. (2009). Image alignment in multimodal metaphor. In Forceville, C. J. and Urios-Aparisi, E., eds., Multi-modal metaphor. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 197–212.Google Scholar
Terrion, J. L., and Ashforth, B. E. (2002). From ‘I’ to ‘we’: The role of putdown humor and identity in the development of a temporary group. Human Relations, 55, 55–88.Google Scholar
Thagard, P. (2011). The brain is wider than the sky: Analogy, emotion, and allegory. Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 131–142.Google Scholar
Thagard, P., and Aubie, B. (2008). Emotional consciousness: A neural model of how cognitive appraisal and somatic perception interact to produce qualitative experience. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 811–834.Google Scholar
Thagard, P., and Stewart, T. C. (2011). The AHA! Experience: Creativity through emergent binding in neural networks. Cognitive Science, 35, 1–33.Google Scholar
Thibodeau, P. H., and Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS ONE, 6(2), Feb 2011, ArtID e16782.Google Scholar
Thibodeau, P. H., and Boroditsky, L. (2015). Measuring effects of metaphor in a dynamic opinion landscape. PLoS ONE, Jul 28, 10(7), e0133939.Google Scholar
Thibodeau, P. H., Iyiewaure, P. O., and Boroditsky, L. (2016). Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS ONE, 6(2), Feb 2011, ArtID e16782.Google Scholar
Thorson, E., Wicks, R., and Leshner, G. (2012). Experimental methodology in journalism and mass communication research. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(1), 112–124. www.doi.org/10.1177/1077699011430066.Google Scholar
Tom, G., Ramil, E., Zapanta, I., Demir, K., and Lopez, S. (2006). The role of overt head movement and attention in persuasion. The Journal of Psychology, 140(3), 247–253. www.doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.140.3.247-253.Google Scholar
Topolinski, S., Lindner, S., and Freudenberg, A. (2014). Popcorn in the cinema: Oral interference sabotages advertising effects. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(2), 169–176. www.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.09.008.Google Scholar
Tourangeau, R., and Rips, L. (1991). Interpreting and evaluating metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 452–472.Google Scholar
Tracy, K. (1997). Interactional trouble in emergency service requests: A problem of frames. Research on language and social interaction, 30, 315–343.Google Scholar
Tseng, M., and Bergen, B. (2005). Lexical processing drives motor simulation. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Valedesolo, P., and DeSten, D. (2016). Manipulations of emotional context shape moral judgment. Psychological Science, 16, 476–477.Google Scholar
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., and Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Veblen, T. (1973). The theory of the leisure class. With an introduction by John Kenneth Galbraith. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Vidmar, N., and Rokeach, M. (1974). Archie Bunker’s bigotry: A study in selective perception and exposure. Journal of Communication, 24, 36–47.Google Scholar
Watzlawick, P., Beavin (Bavelas), J., and Jackson, D. D. (1967/2011). A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Weaver, W. (1949). Recent contributions to the mathematical theory of communication. In Shannon, , C. and Weaver, W., eds., The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
Wellman, H. M., Fang, F., and Peterson, C. C. (2011). Sequential progressions in a theory-of-mind scale: Longitudinal perspectives. Child Development, 82(3), 780–792.Google Scholar
Wells, G. L., and Petty, R. E. (1980). The effects of over head movements on persuasion: Compatibility and incompatibility of responses. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1(3), 219–230. www.doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp0103_2.Google Scholar
Westby, C., and Robinson, L. (2014). A developmental perspective for promoting theory of mind. Topics in Language Disorders, 34(4), 362–382.Google Scholar
Wheatley, T., and Haidt, J. (2005). Hypnotic disgust makes moral judgments more severe. Psychological Science, 16, 780–784.Google Scholar
Wheeler, M. E., Petersen, S. E., and Buckner, R. L. (2000). Memory’s echo: Vivid remembering reactivates sensory-specific cortex. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (USA), 97, 11125–11129.Google Scholar
Whitehead, C. (2014). Why humans and not apes: The social preconditions for the emergence of language. In Dor, D., Knight, C. and Lewis, J., eds., The social origins of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 105–125.Google Scholar
Whiten, A. (2021). The burgeoning reach of animal culture. Science, 372(6537), eabe6514. doi: 10.1126/science.abe6514.Google Scholar
Williams, L. E., and Bargh, J. A. (2008). Experiencing physical warmth influences interpersonal warmth. Science, 322, 606–607.Google Scholar
Wilson, A. E., and Ross, M. (2001). From chump to champ: People’s appraisals of their earlier and present selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(4), 572.Google Scholar
Wilson, D., and Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. Chapter 27. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G., eds., The handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 607–632.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. R. (1968). Perceptual distortion of height as a function of ascribed academic status. The Journal of Social Psychology, 74(1), 97–102. DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1968.9919806Google Scholar
Winograd, T., and Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Yaxley, R. H., and Zwaan, R. A. (2007). Simulating visibility during language comprehension. Cognition, 150, 229–236.Google Scholar
Zajonc, R. B., Murphy, S. T., and Englehart, M. (1989). Feeling and facial efference: Implications of the vascular theory of emotion. Psychological Review, 96, 395–416.Google Scholar
Zbikowski, L. M. (2009). Music, language, and multimodal metaphor. In Forceville, C. J. and Urios-Aparisi, E., eds., Multi-modal metaphor. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 359–381.Google Scholar
Zhong, C.-B., and Leonardelli, G. J. (2008). Cold and lonely: Does social exclusion literally feel cold? Psychological Science, 19, 838–842.Google Scholar
Zhong, C. B., and Liljenquist, K. (2006). Washing away your sins: Threatened morality and physical cleansing. Science, 313, 1451–1452.Google Scholar
Zillmann, D., and Cantor, J. R. (1976). A disposition theory of humor and mirth. In Chapman, T. and Foot, H., eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research, and applications. London: Wiley, pp. 93–115.Google Scholar
Zillmann, D., Hoyt, J. L., and Day, K. D. (1974). Strength and duration of the effect of aggressive, violent, and erotic communications on subsequent aggressive behavior. Communication Research, 1, 286–306.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A. (2014). Embodiment and language comprehension: Reframing the discussion. Trends in cognitive sciences, 18(5), 229-234.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A. (2015). Situation models, mental simulations, and abstract concepts in discourse comprehension. Pscychonomic Bulletin Review. DOI: 10.3758/s13423–015-0864-x.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., Madden, C. J., Yaxley, R. H., and Aveyard, M. E. (2004). Moving words: Dynamic mental representations in language comprehension. Cognitive Science, 28, 611–619.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., and Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162–185. www.dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., and Yaxley, R. H. (2002). Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science, 13, 168–171.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., and Taylor, L. J. (2006). Seeing, acting, understanding: Motor resonance in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 1–11.Google Scholar