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-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T07:36:33.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2020

Zoltán Kövecses
Zoltán Kövecses
Affiliation:
Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest
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
Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory , pp. 186 - 193
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

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

Aitchison, Jean. 1987. Words in the Mind. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Altarriba, J. and Bauer, L. M. 2004. The distinctiveness of emotion concepts: A comparison between emotion, abstract, and concrete words. The American Journal of Psychology, 117, 389–410. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4149007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andor, József. 1985. On the psychological relevance of frames. Quaderni di Semantica, VI, 2, 212–21.Google Scholar
Bambini, V., Gentili, C., Ricciardi, E., Bertinetto, P., and Pietrini, P. 2011. Decomposing metaphor processing at the cognitive and neural level through functional magnetic resonance imaging. Brain Research Bulletin. 86(3–4), 203–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barcelona, Antonio (ed.). 2000. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barcelona, Antonio. 2000. On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In Barcelona, A. (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads, pp. 32–58. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benczes, Réka, Barcelona, Antonio, and de Mendoza Ibanez, Francisco José Ruiz (eds.). 2012. Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a Consensus View. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Benedek, András and Veszelszki, Ágnes (eds.). 2017. Virtual Reality – Real Visuality. Virtual, Visual, Veridical. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Borghi, A. M., Binkofski, F., Castelfranchi, C., Cimatti, F., Scorolli, C., and Tummolini, L. 2017. The challenge of abstract concepts. Psychological Bulletin. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bul0000089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boroditsky, Lera. 2001. Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conception of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boroditsky, Lera and Ramscar, Michael. 2002. The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science, 13(2), 185–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowdle, B. F. and Gentner, D. 2005. The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cameron, Lynne. 2003. Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Cameron, Lynne. 2008. Metaphor and talk. In Gibbs, R. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, pp. 197–211. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Lynne and Maslen, Robert (eds.). 2010. Metaphor Analysis: Research Practice in Applied Linguistics, Social Sciences and the Humanities. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Cameron, Lynne. 2010. The discourse dynamics framework for metaphor. In Cameron, Lynne, and Maslen, Robert (eds.), Metaphor Analysis: Research Practice in Applied Linguistics, Social Sciences and the Humanities, pp. 77–96. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Casasanto, Daniel. 2009. Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right and left handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 351–67.Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2004. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2017. Fire Metaphors: Discourses of Awe and Authority. London-New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Cienki, Alan. 2007. Frames, idealized cognitive models, and domains. In Geeraerts, D., and Cuyckens, H. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, pp. 170–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cienki, Alan and Müller, Cornelia. 2008. Metaphor, gesture, and thought. In Gibbs, Raymond (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, pp. 483–501. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clausner, Tim and Croft, William. 1997. Productivity and schematicity in metaphors. Cognitive Science, 21(3), 247–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, Seana. 2008. Metaphor comprehension and the brain. In Gibbs, , R. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, pp. 177–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coulson, Seana and Oakley, Todd. 2000. Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3/4), 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, Seana and Oakley, Todd. 2003. Metonymy and conceptual blending. In Panther, K.-U. and Thornburg, L. (eds.), Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing, pp. 51–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Lingustics, 4, 335–70.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara and Sweetser, Eve. 2014. Figurative Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
David, Oana, Lakoff, George, and Stickles, Elise. 2016. Cascades in metaphor and grammar. Constructions and Frames, 8(2), 214–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deignan, Alice. 1995. Collins Cobuild English Guides 7: Metaphor. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Deignan, Alice. 2003. Metaphorical expressions and culture: An indirect link. Metaphor and Symbol, 18(4), 255–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deignan, Alice. 2005. Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dirven, René and Pörings, Ralf (eds.). 2002. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Edwards, Derek. 1999. Emotion discourse. Culture and Psychology, 5(3), 271–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El Refaie, Elisabeth. 2019. Visual metaphor and embodiment in graphic illness narratives. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan. 2013. Language and Time: A Cognitive Linguistics Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994. Mental Spaces. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 2007. Mental spaces. In Geeraerts, D., and Cuyckens, H. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, pp. 371–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles and Turner, Mark. 2002. The Way We Think. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles and Turner, Mark. 2008. Rethinking metaphor. In Gibbs, Raymond (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, pp. 53–66. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Jerome. 2006. From Molecule to Metaphor. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm, pp. 111–35. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Forceville, Charles. 1996. Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forceville, Charles. 2008. Metaphor in pictures and multimodal representations. In Gibbs, Raymond (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, pp. 462–82. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Forceville, Charles. 2016. Pictorial and multimodal metaphor. In N-M. Klug and H. Stöckl, eds., Handbuch Sprache im multimodalen Kontext. 241–260. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forceville, Charles and Urios-Aparisi, Eduardo (eds.). 2009. Multimodal Metaphor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FrameNet. https://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal/frameIndexGoogle Scholar
Fusaroli, Ricardo and Morgagni, Simone. 2009. Conceptual metaphor theory: 30 years after. Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1–2).Google Scholar
Gallese, Vittorio and Lakoff, George. 2005. The brain’s concepts. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3–4), 455–79.Google ScholarPubMed
Gelfand, Michele and McCusker, C. 2001. Culture, Metaphor and Negotiation. Handbook of Cross-Cultural Management. Blackwell Publishers, New York, 292–314.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre. 1983. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–70.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1994. The Poetics of Mind. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1999. Researching metaphor. In Cameron, Lynne, and Low, Graham (eds.), Researching and Applying Metaphor, pp. 29–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1999. Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it in into the cultural world. In Gibbs, R. W. and Steen, G. (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, pp. 145–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 2003. Prototypes in dynamic meaning construal. In Gavins, J., and Steen, G. (eds.), Cognitive Poetics in Practice, pp. 27–40. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 2006. Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. (ed.). 2008. The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 2009. Why do some people dislike conceptual metaphor theory. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, 1–2, 14–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 2013. Metaphoric cognition as social activity: Dissolving the divide between metaphor in thought and communication. Metaphor and the Social World, 3, 54–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. (ed.). 2016. Mixing Metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond. 2017a. Metaphor Wars: Conceptual Metaphors in Human Life. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 2017b. Seven empirical challenges for cognitive linguistics. Journal of Cognitive Linguistics: The Journal of the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association, 2(3), 25–38.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 2017c. The embodied and discourse views of metaphor: Why these are not so different and how they can be brought closer together. In Hampe, Beate (ed.), Metaphor: Embodied Cognition and Discourse, pp. 319–35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. and Cameron, Lynne. 2007. Social-cognitive dynamics of metaphor performance. Cognitive Systems Research, 9, 64–75.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. and Colston, Herbert. 2012. Interpreting Figurative Meaning. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goatly, Andrew. 1997. The Language of Metaphors. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goatly, Andrew. 2007. Washing the Brain: Metaphor and Hidden Ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goossens, Louis. 1990. Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grady, Joseph E. 1997a. Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary scenes. Ph.D. diss., University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Grady, Joseph E. 1997b. theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics 8, 267–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grady, Joseph E. 1999. A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor. In Gibbs, R., and Steen, G. (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, pp. 79–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grady, Joseph. 2005. Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1595–614.Google Scholar
Grady, Joseph and Johnson, Christopher. 2002. Converging evidence for the notions of subscene and primary scene. In Dirven, René, and Pörings, Ralf (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, pp. 533–54. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grady, Joseph, Oakley, Todd, and Coulson, Seana. 1999. Blending and metaphor. In Gibb, Raymond, and Steen, Gerard (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, pp. 101–24. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hampe, Beate. 2005. Image schemas in cognitive linguistics: Introduction. In Hampe, B., with Grady, J. (eds.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, pp. 1–12. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, Dorothy and Quinn, Naomi (eds.). 1987. Cultural Models in Language and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Katz, A. N., Cacciari, C., Gibbs, R. W. and Turner, M. 1998. Figurative Language and Thought. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kimmel, Michael. 2010. Why we mix metaphors (and mix them well): Discourse coherence, conceptual metaphor, and beyond. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 97–115.Google Scholar
Kolodny, Annette. 1975. The Lay of the Land: Metaphor as Experience and History in American Life and Letters. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Kolodny, Annette. 1984. The Land Before Her: Fantasy and Experience of the American Frontiers, 1630–1860. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltan. 1986. Metaphors of Anger, Pride, and Love: A Lexical Approach to the Study of Concepts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 1990. Emotion Concepts. Berlin and New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltan. 1995a. American friendship and the scope of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics 6–4, 315–46.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 1995b. Anger: Its language, conceptualization, and physiology. In Taylor, J., and MacLaury, R. (eds.), Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World, pp. 181–96. Berlin: Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2000a. The scope of metaphor. In Barcelona, Antonio (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads, pp. 79–92. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2000b. Metaphor and Emotion. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2000c. American English: An Introduction. Peterborough, Canada: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2002/2010. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. (1st edition 2002, 2nd edition 2010). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltan. 2005. Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2006. Language, Mind, and Culture: A Practical Introduction. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2008. Metaphor and emotion. In Gibbs, R. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, pp. 380–96. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2010a. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2010b. A new look at metaphorical creativity in cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(4), 663–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2011a. Methodological issues in conceptual metaphor theory. In Handl, S., and Schmid, H.-J. (eds.), Windows to the Mind: Metaphor, Metonymy and Conceptual blending, pp. 23–39. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2011b. Recent developments in metaphor theory: Are the new views rival ones? Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 11–25.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2011c. The biblical story retold: A cognitive linguistic perspective. In Brdar, M., Gries, S., and Fuchs, M. (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and Expansion, pp. 325–54. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2013. The metaphor-metonymy relationship: Correlation metaphors are based on metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(2), 75–88.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltan. 2015a. Where Metaphors Come From, Reconsidering Context in Metaphor. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltan. 2015b. Surprise as a conceptual category. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13–2, 270–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2015c. Metaphor and emergentism. In MacWhinney, Brian, and O’Grady, William (eds.), The Handbook of Language Emergence, 147–162. John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2017a. A radical view of the literal-figurative distinction. In Benedek, A., and Veszelszki, Á. (eds.), Virtual Reality – Real Visuality: Virtual, Visual, Veridical, pp. 17–28. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2017b. Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 28–2, 321–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2018. The power (and problem) of money. Society and Economy 40(3), 365–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2019. Idioms of money – In a new light. In Duda, B., Kieltyka, R., and Konieczna, E. (eds.), Culture, Cognition, Discourse and Grammar, pp. 21–32. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán In press. Sensing the city: Budapest through its metaphors. In Digonnet, R. and Beligon, S. eds. Manifestations sensorielles des urbanités contemporaines, Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán and Radden, Günter. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(7), 37–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán, Ambrus, Laura, Hegedűs, Dániel, Imai, Ren, and Sobczak, Anna. 2019. The lexical vs. corpus-based method in the study of metaphors. In Bolognesi, M., Brdar, M., and Despot, K. (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age: Theory and methods for building repositories of figurative language, pp. 149–173. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1990. The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 39–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. Second edition, pp. 202–51. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1995. Metaphor, morality, and politics, or, why conservatives have left liberals in the dust. www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html (First published in Social Research 62(2).)Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1996. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 2008. The neural theory of metaphor. In Gibbs, Raymond (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor, pp. 17–38. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George and Kövecses, Zoltán. 1987. The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. In Holland, D., and Quinn, N. (eds.), Cultural Models in Language and Thought, pp. 195–221. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George and Turner, Mark. 1989. More Than Cool Reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Landau, Mark. 2017. Conceptual Metaphor in Social Psychology: The Poetics of Everyday Life. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Low, G., Todd, Z., Deignan, A. and Cameron, L. (eds). 2010. Researching and Applying Metaphor in the Real World. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Cornelia. 2008. Metaphors Dead and Alive, Sleeping and Waking: A Dynamic View. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Musolff, Andreas. 2001. Political imagery of Europe: A house without exit doors? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21(3), 216–29.Google Scholar
Musolff, Andreas. 2004. Metaphor and Political Discourse. Analogical Reasoning in Discourse About Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Musolff, Andreas. 2006. Metaphor scenarios in public discourse: Metaphor and Symbol, 21(1), 23–38.Google Scholar
Musolff, Andreas. 2016. Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Narayanan, Srini. 1999. Moving right along: A computational model of metaphoric reasoning about events. Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI '99), Orlando, Florida, July 18–22, 1999, pp. 121–28, AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Pragglejaz Group. 2007. MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39.Google Scholar
Quinn, Naomi. 1991. The cultural basis of metaphor. In Fernandez, J. (ed.), Beyond Metaphor: The Theory of Tropes in Anthropology. pp. 56–93. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter. 2002. How metonymic are metaphors? In Dirven, René and Pörings, Ralf (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, pp. 407–33. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter and Kövecses, Zoltán, 1999. Towards a theory of metonymy. In Panther, Uwe-Klaus, and Radden, Günter (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought, 17–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rakova, Marina. 2003. The Extent of the Literal: Metaphor, Polysemy and Theories of Concepts. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, Michael. 1979. The conduit metaphor – A case frame conflict in our language about language. In Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, pp. 284–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Rosch, E., and Lloyd, B. B. (eds.), Cognition and Categorization, pp. 27–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco. 1998. On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 259–74.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco and Galera, Alicia. 2014. Cognitive Modeling. A Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. and Mairal, R. 2007. High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In Radden, G., Köpcke, K.-M., Berg, T., and Siemund, P. (eds.), Aspects of Meaning Construction, pp. 33–51. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1993. Metaphor. In Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, pp. 92–123. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Semino, Elena. 2008. Metaphor and Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Semino, Elena and Demjén, Zsófia (eds.). 2017. The Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sharifian, Farzad. 2011. Cultural Conceptualizations and Language. Theoretical Framework and Applications. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sharifian, Farzad (ed.). 2015. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture. Milton Park: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sharifian, Farzad (ed.). 2017a. Advances in Cultural Linguistics. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
Sharifian, Farzad. 2017b. Cultural Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shen, Yeshayahu and Balaban, Noga. 1999. Metaphorical (in)coherence in discourse. Discourse Processes, 28(2), 139–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinha, Chris. 2007. Cognitive linguistics, psychology, and cognitive science. In Geeraerts, D., and Cuyckens, H. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, pp. 1266–94. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deidre. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard. 2008. The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 213–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, Gerard. 2011. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor – Now New and Improved! Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1):26–64.Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard. 2013. Deliberate metaphor affords conscious metaphorical thought. www.academia.edu/363751/Deliberate_metaphor_affords_conscious_metaphorical_thoughtGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2006. Words and their metaphors. In Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Gries, Stefan Th. (eds.), Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy, pp. 64–105. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Karen. 2006. Frame-based constraints on lexical choice in metaphor. 32nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS), Berkeley, CA, 2006. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1492026Google Scholar
Sullivan, Karen. 2013. Frames and Constructions in Metaphoric Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Karen. 2016. Integrating constructional semantics and conceptual metaphor. Constructions and Frames, 8(2), 141–65.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, John. 1989. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. and MacLaury, Robert (eds.). 1995. Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John and Mbense, Thandi. 1998. Red dogs and rotten mealies: How Zulus talk about anger. In Athanasiadou, A., and Tabakowska, E. (eds.), Speaking of Emotions, pp. 191–226. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. and Dasher, R. B. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
Trim, Richard. 2007. Metaphor Networks: The Comparative Evolution of Figurative Language. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Trim, Richard. 2011. Metaphor and the Historical Evolution of Conceptual Mapping. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Turner, Mark. 1996. The Literary Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, Mark and Fauconnier, Gilles. 2000. Metaphor, metonymy, and binding. In Barcelona, Antonio (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads, pp. 133–45. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun. 2009. Society and Discourse: How Social Contexts Influence Text and Talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yu, Ning. 1995. Metaphorical expressions of anger and happiness in English and Chinese. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10, 59–92.Google Scholar
Yu, Ning. 1998. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor in Chinese: A Perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Yu, Ning. 2002. Body and emotion: Body parts in Chinese expression of emotion. Pragmatics & Cognition, 10(1), 341–67.Google Scholar
Zinken, Jörg. 2007. Discourse metaphors: The link between figurative language and habitual analogies. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(3), 445–66.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.

  • References
  • Zoltán Kövecses, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest
  • Book: Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory
  • Online publication: 02 April 2020
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108859127.010
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.

  • References
  • Zoltán Kövecses, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest
  • Book: Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory
  • Online publication: 02 April 2020
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108859127.010
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.

  • References
  • Zoltán Kövecses, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest
  • Book: Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory
  • Online publication: 02 April 2020
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108859127.010
Available formats
×