Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T07:15:03.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2019

Patricia Kolaiti
Patricia Kolaiti
Affiliation:
New York College, Athens
Get access

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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Limits of Expression
Language, Literature, Mind
 , pp. 132 - 142
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alter, T. and Walter, S. (eds.) 2007. Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge: New Essays on Consciousness and Physicalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. 2015. The Renaissance Extended Mind. (New directions in philosophy and cognitive science). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, R. L. 1979. Art in Primitive Societies. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Armstrong, S. L., Gleitman, L. R. and Gleitman, H. 1983. What some concepts might not be. Cognition 13, 3: 263–308.Google Scholar
Arnheim, R. 1974. Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye. (2nd edn.) Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Attridge, D. 2004. The Singularity of Literature. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, K. and Harnish, R. M. 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baldwin, D. A. and Moses, J. A. 2001. Links between social understanding and early word learning: Challenges to current accounts. Social Development 10: 311–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, D. 2009. There are no phenomenal concepts. Mind 118, 472: 935–962.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S. 1995. Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. 1987. The instability of graded structure: Implications for the nature of concepts. In Neisser, U. (ed.) Concepts and Conceptual Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. 1992. Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In Kittay, E. and Lehrer, A. (eds.) Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Barthes, R. 1967. The death of the author. Available at www.tbook.constantvzw.org/wp-content/death_authorbarthes.pdfGoogle Scholar
Barthes, R. 1970. S/Z. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Barthes, R. 1977. The Death of the Author. (Edited and translated by Heath, Stephen). New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
Beardsley, M. 1965. On the creation of art. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 23, 3: 291–304.Google Scholar
Bernstein, R. (ed.) 1985. Habermas and Modernity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bertoncini, J. and Mehler, J. 1980. Language perception in the newborn infant: Some observations. Reproduction, Nutrition et Development 20, 3(b): 859–869.Google Scholar
Bertoncini, J. and Mehler, J. 1981. Syllables as units in infant speech perception. Infant Behaviour and Development 4, 3: 247–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertoncini, J. and Mehler, J. 1984a. A discussion of the research into an initial state. Neuropsychoatrie de l’ Enfance et de l’ Adolescence 32, 10–11: 497–510.Google Scholar
Bertoncini, J. and Mehler, J. 1984b. Syllables as units in the perception of spoken language by the infant. Cuadernos de Psicologia 6, 1: 45–60.Google Scholar
Blocker, G. H. 1994. The Aesthetics of Primitive Art. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Blutner, R. 1998. Lexical pragmatics. Journal of Semantics 15: 115–162.Google Scholar
Blutner, R. 2002. Lexical semantics and pragmatics. Linguistische Berichte 10: 27–58.Google Scholar
Bolens, G. 2012. The Style of Gestures: Embodiment and Cognition in Literary Narrative. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Bond, E. J. 1975. The essential nature of art. American Philosophical Quarterly 12: 177–183.Google Scholar
Brewer, W. 1994. Mary Shelley on the therapeutic value of language. Papers on Language and Literature. Available at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3708/is_199410/ai_n8731488/Google Scholar
Brik, O. M. 1971. Contributions to the study of verse language. In Matejka, L. and Pomorska, K. (eds.) Readings in Russian Poetics: Formalist and Structuralist Views. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brône, G. and Vandaele, J. 2009. Cognitive Poetics: Goals, Gains and Gaps. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, A. 2004. What phenomenal consciousness is like. In Gennaro, R. (ed.) Higher-Order Theories of Consciousness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cacciari, C. 1998. Why do we speak metaphorically? Reflections in thought and language. In Katz, A. N., Cacciari, C., Gibbs, R.W. and Turner, M. (eds.) Figurative Language and Thought. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carruthers, P. 2000. Phenomenal Consciousness: A Naturalistic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Carston, R. and Uchida, S. (eds.) 1997. Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carter, R. 2004. Language and Creativity: The Art of Common Talk. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cassedy, S. 1992. Flight from Eden: The Origins of Modern Literary Criticism and Theory. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cave, T. 2011. Thinking with Literature. (Talk delivered at the Balzan workshop on ‘Concepts’, St John’s College, Oxford. September 2011).Google Scholar
Cave, T. 2016. Thinking with Literature: Towards a Cognitive Criticism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cheetham, M. A. 2001. Kant, Art and Art History: Moments of Discipline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1976. Reflections on Language. London: Temple Smith.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, B. 2009. Salient inferences: Pragmatics and the inheritors. Language and Literature 18: 173–212.Google Scholar
Cohen, N. 1999. The inadequacy of language in Graves’ ‘Recalling War’. English 354: Finley (online paper).Google Scholar
Cosmides, L. and Tooby, J. 2000. Evolutionary psychology and the emotions. In Lewis, M. and Haviland-Jones, J. M. (eds.) Handbook of Emotions (2nd edn.) New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Crane, T. 1992. The nonconceptual content of experience. In Crane, T. (ed.) The Contents of Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crisp, P. 2003. Conceptual metaphor and its expressions. In Gavins, J. and Steen, G. (eds.) Cognitive Poetics in Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Currie, G. 1989. An Ontology of Art. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Currie, G. 1993. Aliens too. Analysis 53: 116–118.Google Scholar
Currie, G. 2000. A note on art and historical concepts. The British Journal of Aesthetics 40: 186–190.Google Scholar
Currie, G. 2004. Arts and Minds. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Currie, G. 2009. Image and Mind: Film, Philosophy and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Currie, G. 2010. Actual art, possible art and art’s definition. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 68, 3: 235–241.Google Scholar
Currie, G., and Ravenscroft, I. 2002. Recreative Minds: Imagination in Philosophy and Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Currie, G., Kieran, M., Meskin, A. and Robson, J. (eds.) 2014. Aesthetics and the Sciences of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Danto, A. C. 1964. The artworld. Journal of Philosophy 61, 19: 571–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danto, A. C. 1981. The Transfiguration of the Commonplace: A Philosophy of Art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, D. 2004. Art as Performance. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, D. 2005. Reperforming and reforming art as performance: Responses. Acta Analytica 20: 64–90.Google Scholar
Davis, S. (ed.) 1991. Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, J. 1976. Of Grammatology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Dickie, G. 1971. Aesthetics: An Introduction. Indianapolis: Pegasus.Google Scholar
Dickie, G. 1974. Art and the Aesthetic: An Institutional Analysis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. 1988. Explaining Behaviour: Reasons in a World of Causes. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. 1999. Knowledge and the Flow of Information. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Dutton, D. 1979. Artistic crimes. The British Journal of Aesthetics 19: 302–341.Google Scholar
Dutton, D. 2000. But they don’t have our concept of art. In Noel, C. (ed.) Theories of Art Today. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Dutton, D. 2001. Aesthetic universals. In Gaut, B. and McIver, D. L. (eds.) The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dutton, D. 2006. A naturalist definition of art. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 64, 3: 367–377.Google Scholar
Eagleton, T. 1983/2008 (3rd edn.) Literary Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Elytis, O. 1998. Journal of an Unseen April. Athens: Ypsilon Books.Google Scholar
Emmott, C. 2003. Reading for pleasure: A cognitive poetic analysis of ‘Twists in the Tale’ and other plot reversals in narrative texts. In Gavins, J. and Steen, G. (eds.), Cognitive Poetics in Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Evans, G. 1985. Collected Papers. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Fabb, N. and Durant, A. 1987a. Introduction: The linguistics of writing: Retrospect and prospect after twenty five years. In Fabb, N. et al. (eds.) The Linguistics of Writing: Arguments between Language and Literature. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Fabb, N. and Durant, A. 1987b. New courses in the linguistics of writing. In Fabb, N. et al. (eds.) The Linguistics of Writing: Arguments between Language and Literature. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Farell, J. 2017. The Varieties of Authorial Intention: Literary Theory beyond the Intentional Fallacy. Cham: Palgrave and Springer.Google Scholar
Fish, S. 1967. Surprised by Sin: The Reader in Paradise Lost. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fish, S. 1980. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. 1975. The Language of Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. 1993. Déjà vu all over again: How Danto’s aesthetics recapitulates the philosophy of mind. In Rollins, M. (ed.) Danto and His Critics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A., Fodor, J. D. and Garrett, M. 1975. The psychological unreality of semantic representations. Linguistic Enquiry 6: 515–531.Google Scholar
Fowler, R. 1996. Studying literature as language. In Weber, J. J. (ed.) The Stylistics Reader. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Freeman, M. 2002. The body in the word: A cognitive approach to the shape of a poetic text. In Semino, E. and Culpeper, J. (eds.) Cognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Frith, C. D. 2012. The role of metacognition in human social interactions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences 367: 2213–2223.Google Scholar
Garrat, P. 2016. The Cognitive Humanities: Embodied Mind in Literature and Culture. London: Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
Gasché, R. 2003. The Idea of Form: Rethinking Kant’s Aesthetics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Gaut, B. 2000. Art as a cluster concept. In Noel, C. (ed.) Theories of Art Today. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Gavins, J. 2007. Text World Theory: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Gavins, J. and Steen, G. 2003. Cognitive Poetics in Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gerrig, R. 1993. Experiencing Narrative Worlds: On the Psychological Activities of Reading. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Giannisi, P. 2016. Edmond Jabès: The book of questions. Journal FRMK 8: 37–52.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. 2003. Embodied standing and the psychological semantics of stand. In Newman, J. (ed.) The Linguistics of Standing, Lying, and Sitting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. 2006. Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind and Language 21, 3: 434–458.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Beitel, D. A., Harrington, M. and Sanders, P. E. 1994. Taking a stand on the meanings of stand: Bodily experience as motivation for polysemy. Journal of Semantics 11: 231–251.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. R., Gleitman, H., Landau, B. and Wanner, E. 1988. Where Learning Begins: Initial Representations for Language Learning. Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey (Volume 3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goorhuis-Brouwer, S. M. and Wijnberg-Williams, B. J. 1996. Specificity of specific language impairment. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica 48: 269–274.Google Scholar
Gopnik, M. 1994. Impairments of tense in a familial language disorder. Journal of Neurolinguistics 8: 109–133.Google Scholar
Gopnik, M. 1999. Some evidence for impaired grammars. In Jackendoff, R., Bloom, P. and Wynn, K. (eds.) Language, Logic and Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gopnik, M. and Crago, M. 1991. Familial aggregation of a developmental language disorder. Cognition 39: 1–50.Google Scholar
Gordon, C. (ed.) 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1967. Logic and conversation. William James Lectures. In Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gutt, E. A. 2000/2010. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. (2nd edn.) Abingdon-on-Thames, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1971: Linguistic function and literary style: An inquiry into the language of William Golding’s ‘The Inheritors’. In Weber, J. J. 1996 (ed.) The Stylistics Reader. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Harvey, D. 1990. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. 1971. Poetry, Language, Thought. New York: Perennial Classics.Google Scholar
Heil, J. 1991. Perceptual experience. In Mc Laughlin, B. (ed.) Dretske and His Critics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heyes, C. 2010. Where do mirror neurons come from? Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 34: 575–83.Google Scholar
Hofer, T., Hauf, P. and Aschersleben, G. 2005. Infant’s perception of goal-directed actions performed by a mechanical device. Infant Behavior and Development 28: 466–480.Google Scholar
Hogan, P. C. 1990. The Politics of Interpretation: Ideology, Professionalism, and the Study of Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hogan, P. C. 2003a. The Mind and Its Stories: Narrative Universals and Human Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hogan, P. C. 2003b. Cognitive Science, Literature and the Arts: A Guide for Humanists. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hogan, P. C. 2011. What Literature Teaches Us about Emotion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hogan, P. C. 2013. How Authors’ Minds Make Stories. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hogan, P. C. 2016. Beauty and Sublimity: A Cognitive Aesthetics of Literature and the Arts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hohendahl, P. U. 1977. Introduction to reception aesthetics. New German Critique 10: 29–63.Google Scholar
Holland, N. N. 1968. The Dynamics of Literary Response. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holquist, M. 1981 (ed.). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Holub, R. C. 1984. Reception Theory: A Critical Introduction. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Holub, R. C. 1992. Crossing Borders: Reception Theory, Poststructuralism, Deconstruction. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Hospers, J. 1985. Artistic creativity. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 43, 3: 243–255.Google Scholar
Iser, W. 1978. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, T. E. 2002. Issues and problems in the blending of cognitive science, evolutionary psychology and literary study. Poetics Today 23: 161–179.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1958/1996. Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Weber, J. J. (ed.) 1996. The Stylistics Reader. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1987. Language in literature. In Pomorska, K. and Rudy, S. (eds.) Language in Literature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jauss, H. R. 1982a. Aesthetic Experience and Literary Hermeneutics. Minneapolis, MI: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Jauss, H. R. 1982b. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. Minneapolis, MI: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. 1980. The Critical Difference: Essays in the Contemporary Rhetoric of Reading. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W. and Bertoncini, J. 1988. Viewing the development of speech perception as an innately guided learning process. Language and Speech 31, 3: 217–238.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W., Cutler, A., and Redanz, N. J. 1993. Infants’ preference for the predominant stress patterns of English words. Child Development 64: 675–687.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1987. Critique of Judgment. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Katz, A. N., Cacciari, C., Gibbs, R. W. and Turner, M. 1998. Figurative Language and Thought. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. 1978. Effability and translation. In Guenthner, F. and Guenthner-Reutter, M. (eds.) Meaning and Translation: Philosophical and Linguistic Approaches. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. 1981. Language and Other Abstract Objects. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kemp, R. 2012. Embodied Acting: What Neuroscience Tells Us about Performance. Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kessous, L., Castellano, G. and Caridakis, G. 2010. Multimodal emotion recognition in speech-based interaction using facial expression, body gesture and acoustic analysis. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces 3, 1–2: 33–48.Google Scholar
Kieran, M. 2003. In search of a narrative: Narrative understanding, imagination, sympathy and empathy. In Kieran, M. and Lopes, D. (eds.) Imagination, Philosophy and the Arts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kieran, M. 2014. Creativity as a virtue of character. In Paul, E. and Kauffman, S. (eds.) The Philosophy of Creativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kilner, J. M., Friston, K. J. and Frith, C. D. 2007. Predictive coding: An account of the mirror neuron system. Cognitive Processes 8, 3:159–166.Google Scholar
Kilner, J. M., Marchant, J. L. and Frith, C. D. 2009. Relationship between activity in human primary motor cortex during action observation and the mirror neuron system. PLoS One 4, 3: e4925.Google Scholar
Kilner, J. M., Neal, A., Weiskopf, N., Friston, K. J. and Frith, C. D. 2009. Evidence of mirror neurons in human inferior frontal gyrus. Journal of Neuroscience 29: 10153–10159.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1987. On theory and interpretation. In Fabb, N. et al. (eds.) The Linguistics of Writing: Arguments between Language and Literature. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Koestler, A. 1964. The Art of Creation. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kolaiti, P. 2015. The poetic mind: A producer-oriented approach to literature and art. Journal of Literary Semantics 44, 1: 23–44.Google Scholar
Kolaiti, P. and Wilson, D. 2014. Corpus analysis and lexical pragmatics: An overview. International Review of Pragmatics 6, 2: 211–239.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. 1972. Naming and necessity. In Davidson, D. and Harman, G. (eds.) Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Krukowski, L., Batkin, N. and Davis, W. 1998. Formalism. In Kelly, M. (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Aesthetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuiken, D., Miall, D. S. and Sikora, S. 2004. Forms of self-implication in literary reading. Poetics Today 25: 171–203.Google Scholar
Kuiken, D., Phillips, L., Gregus, M., Miall, D. S., Verbitsky, M. and Tonkonogy, A. 2004. Locating self-modifying feelings within literary reading. Discourse Processes 38: 267–286.Google Scholar
Lahey, E. and Cruickshank, T. 2006. Two sides of the same coin: Building the stages of drama in Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. Unpublished paper presented at 26th PALA Conference, Joensuu, Finland, July 2006.Google Scholar
LaMarque, P. 1999. Poetry and private language. In The Padeia Project On-Line: Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, available at www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Aest/AestLam2.htm.Google Scholar
Landau, B. 1994. Where’s what and what’s where: The language of objects in space. Lingua 92: 259–296.Google Scholar
Lascarides, A. and Copestake, A. 1998. Pragmatics and word meaning. Journal of Linguistics 34, 2: 387–414.Google Scholar
Laurence, S. and Margolis, E. 2002. Radical concept nativism. Cognition 86: 25–55.Google Scholar
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lemon, L. T. and Reis, M. J. 1965. Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. B. 1997. Children with Specific Language Impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, J. 1979. Defining art historically. The British Journal of Aesthetics 19: 232–250.Google Scholar
Levinson, J. 1989. Refining art historically. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 47: 21–33.Google Scholar
Levinson, J. 1993. Extending art historically. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 51: 411–423.Google Scholar
Levinson, J. 2002. The irreducible historicality of the concept of art. The British Journal of Aesthetics 42: 367–379.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. 2000. Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. S. 1961. An Experiment in Criticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyne, R. 2014. Shakespeare, Rhetoric and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maitland, J. 1975. Identity, ontology and the work of art. Southwestern Journal of Philosophy 6, 3: 181–196.Google Scholar
Malt, B. C. and Johnson, E. C. 1992. Do artifact concepts have cores? Journal of Memory and Language 31, 2: 195–217.Google Scholar
Margolis, E. 1998. How to acquire a concept. Mind and Language 13: 347–369.Google Scholar
Matejka, L. and Pomorska, C. (eds.) 1978. Readings in Russian Poetics: Formalist and Structuralist Views. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
McGinn, C. 1989. Mental Content. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
McIntyre, D. 2005. Logic, reality and mind style in Alan Bennett’s ‘The Lady in the Van’. Journal of Literary Semantics 34, 1: 21–40.Google Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N. 1995. Understanding the intentions of others: Re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Developmental Psychology 31, 5: 838–850.Google Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N. 2010. Bridging between action representation and infant theory of mind. In Frensch, P. A. and Schwarzer, R. (eds.) Cognition and Neurospsychology (Vol. 1); International Perspectives on Psychological Science. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Miall, D. S. 1988. Affect and narrative: A model of response to stories. Poetics 17: 259–272.Google Scholar
Miall, D. S. 1989. Beyond the schema given: Affective comprehension of literary narratives. Cognition and Emotion 3, 1: 55–78.Google Scholar
Miall, D. S. 2006. Literary Reading: Empirical and Theoretical Studies. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, J. 1993. Why philosophy of art in a cross-cultural perspective? The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 51: 425–436.Google Scholar
Morgan, D. N. 1953. Creativity today: A constructive analytic review of certain philosophical and psychological work. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 12, 1: 1–24.Google Scholar
Neal, A. and Kilner, J. M. 2010.What is simulated in the action observation network when we observe actions? European Journal of Neuroscience 32, 10: 1765–1770.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. and Sperber, D. 2007. The why and how of experimental pragmatics: The case of ‘scalar inferences’. In Burton-Roberts, N. (ed.) Advances in Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
O’Toole, L. M. and Shukman, A. 1977. Formalist theory. Russian Poetics in Translation 4.Google Scholar
Pilkington, A. 2000. Poetic Effects: A Relevance Theory Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pilkington, A. 2001. Non-lexicalised concepts and degrees of effability: Poetic thoughts and the attraction of what is not in the dictionary. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 15: 1–10.Google Scholar
Pilkington, A. 2010. Metaphor comprehension: Some questions for current accounts in relevance theory. In Soria, B. and Romero, E. (eds.) Explicit Communication: Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 1994. The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Propp, V. J. 1928/1968. Morphology of the Folktale. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1975. The meaning of ‘meaning’. In Gunderson, K. (ed.) Language, Mind and Knowledge. Minneapolis, MI: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Ramus, F. and Mehler, J. 1999. Language identification with suprasegmental cues: A study based on speech resynthesis. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 105, 1: 512–521.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. 2002. Does linguistic communication rest on inference? Mind and Language 17, 1–2: 105–126.Google Scholar
Richards, I. A. 1929. Practical Criticism: A Study of Literary Judgement. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. 1998. Brains, minds, and texts. Review 20: 39–48.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. 2010. The Neural Sublime: Cognitive Theories and Romantic Texts. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, David M. 2002. How many kinds of consciousness? Consciousness and Cognition 11: 653–665.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. Available at www.bartleby.com/186/11.htmlGoogle Scholar
Schütz-Bosbach, S., Mancini, B., Aglioti, S. M., and Haggard, P. 2006. Self and other in the human motor system. Current Biology 16, 8: 1830–1834.Google Scholar
Searle, J. 1983. Intentionality; An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Semino, E. and Culpeper, J. 2002. Cognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text Analysis. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shklovsky, V. 1965. Art as technique. In Lemon, L.T. and Reis, M. J. (eds.) Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Skerry, A. E. and Spelke, E. S. 2014. Preverbal infants identify emotional reactions that are incongruent with goal outcomes. Cognition 130: 204–216.Google Scholar
Smith, B. et al. 1992. Open letter against Derrida receiving an honorary doctorate from Cambridge University. The Times, London, 9 May 1992.Google Scholar
Smith, D. A. 2002. The Problem of Perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, V. L. 2006. Ransacking the language: Finding the missing goods in Virginia Woolf’s Orlando. Journal of Modern Literature 29: 57–75.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. 1997. Intuitive and reflective beliefs. Mind and Language 12: 67–83.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd edn.; 1st edn. 1986) Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1998. The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In Carruthers, P. and Boucher, J. (eds.) Language and Thought: Interdisciplinary Themes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 2008. A deflationary account of metaphors. In Gibbs, R. (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stecker, R. 1986. The end of an institutional definition of art. British Journal of Aesthetics 26, 2: 124–132.Google Scholar
Stecker, R. 1990. The boundaries of art. British Journal of Aesthetics 30, 3: 266–272.Google Scholar
Stecker, R. 1992. Defining art: The functionalism proceduralism controversy. Southern Journal of Philosophy 30: 141–152.Google Scholar
Stecker, R. 1994. Historical Functionalism of the Four Factor theory. British Journal of Aesthetics 34, 3: 255–265.Google Scholar
Stockwell, P. 2002a. Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stockwell, P. 2002b. Miltonic texture and the feeling of reading. In Semino, E. and Culpeper, J. (eds.) Cognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stockwell, P. 2005. Texture and identification. European Journal of English Studies 9, 2: 143–153.Google Scholar
Stockwell, P. 2007. Texture: Towards a Cognitive Aesthetics of Reading. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Tallal, P., Ross, R., and Curtiss, S. 1989. Familial aggregation in specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 54: 167–173.Google Scholar
Tallal, P., Stark, R., Kallman, C., and Mellits, D. (1981). A re-examination of some nonverbal perceptual abilities of language-impaired and normal children as a function of age and sensory modality. Annals of Neurology 10: 159–163.Google Scholar
Taylor-Batty, J. 2007. Imperfect mastery: The failure of grammar in Beckett’s ‘L’Innommable’. Journal of Modern Literature 30: 163–179.Google Scholar
Tilghman, B. R. 1984. But Is It Art?; The Value of Art and the Temptation Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Todorov, T. 1981. Introduction to Poetics. Brighton: Harvester.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. and Moll, H. 2010. The gap is social: Human shared intentionality and culture. In Kappeler, P. and Silk, J. (eds.) Mind the Gap: Tracing the Origins of Human Universals. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T. and Moll, H. 2005. Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28: 675–735.Google Scholar
Toolan, M. 1996. Stylistics and its discontents; or, getting off the Fish ‘hook’. In Weber, J. J. (ed.) The Stylistics Reader. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Tranströmer, T. 2011. April and silence (translation by Patty Crane). An Online Journal of Literature and the Arts 10, 1 available at www.blackbird.vcu.edu/v10n1/poetry/crane_p/001pc_page.shtmlGoogle Scholar
Tsakiris, M., Schütz-Bosbach, S. and Gallagher, S. 2007. On agency and body-ownership: Phenomenological and neurocognitive reflections. Consciousness and Cognition 16, 3: 645–660.Google Scholar
Tsur, R. 2002. Aspects of cognitive poetics. In Semino, E. and Culpeper, J. (eds.) Cognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text Analysis, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tsur, R. 2008. Toward a Theory of Cognitive Poetics (2nd edn.). Brighton : Sussex Academic Press.Google Scholar
Turner, M. 1996. The Literary Mind: The Origins of Thought and Language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, M. 2002. The cognitive study of art, language and literature. Poetics Today 23: 9–20.Google Scholar
Tye, M. 2006a. The thesis of nonconceptual content. European Review of Philosophy 6: 7–30.Google Scholar
Tye, M. 2006b. Absent qualia and the mind-body problem. Philosophical Review 115:139–169.Google Scholar
Tye, M. 2007. New troubles for the qualia freak. In Cohen, J. and McLaughlin, B. P. (eds.) Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tye, M. 2009. Consciousness Revisited: Materialism without Phenomenal Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Van der Henst, J. B. and Sperber, D. 2004. Testing the cognitive and communicative principles of relevance. In Noveck, I. and Sperber, D. (eds.) Experimental Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
Van den Stock, J., Righart, R. and de Gelder, B. 2007. Body expressions influence recognition of emotions in the face and voice. Emotion 7, 3: 487–494.Google Scholar
Von Hofmannsthal, H. 2007. The Lord Chandos Letter and other Writings. New York: NYRB Classics.Google Scholar
Waldrop, R. 1971. Against Language? ‘Dissatisfaction with Language’ as Theme and as Impulse towards Experiments in Twentieth Century Poetry. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Wallentin, M., Nielsen, A. H., Vuust, P., Dohn, A., Roepstorff, A., and Lund, T. E. 2011. Amygdala and heart rate variability responses from listening to emotionally intense parts of a story. NeuroImage 58, 3: 963–973.Google Scholar
Walton, L. K. 1990. Mimesis as Make-believe: On the Foundations of the Representational Arts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, J. J. 1996. The Stylistics Reader. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Weitz, M. 1956. The role of theory in aesthetics. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 15: 27–35.Google Scholar
Wharton, T. 2003. Pragmatics and the Showing – Saying distinction. PhD in Linguistics. UCL.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. 2003. Relevance and lexical pragmatics. Italian Journal of Linguistics/ Rivista di Linguistica 15: 273–291. Special issue on Pragmatics and the Lexicon.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. 2011. Cognition, Communication and Relevance (Talk delivered at the Balzan workshop on ‘Concepts’, St John’s College, Oxford. September 2011).Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Carston, R. 2006. Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue. Mind and Language 21: 404–433.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Carston, R. 2007. A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In Burton-Roberts, N. (ed.) Pragmatics. Palgrave Advances in Linguistics series. Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. 2002. Truthfulness and relevance. Mind 111: 583–632.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. 2012. Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1958. Philosophical Investigations (3rd edn.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 2001. Philosophical Investigations: The German Text, with a Revised English Translation (3rd edn.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wollheim, R. 2001. On formalism and pictorial organization. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 59, 2: 127–137.Google Scholar
Woodward, A. L. 1998. Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor’s reach. Cognition 69, 1: 1–34.Google Scholar
Woodward, A. L. 2005. The infant origins of intentional understanding. In Kail, R. V. (ed.) Advances in Child Development and Behavior (Vol. 33). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Woodward, L. A. 2009. Infants’ grasp of others’ intentions. Current Directions in Psychological Science 18, 1: 53–57.Google Scholar
Zangwill, N. 2002. Are there counterexamples to aesthetic theories of art? The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 60: 111–118.Google Scholar
Zangwill, N. 2003. Beauty. In Levinson, J. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zunshine, L. (ed.) 2015. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Literary Studies. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×