Concepts that fit in a (Roman) hand

References

1. Ahn, H. J., & Kwon, Y. J.
   (2007) A study on metaphor and metonymy of hand. Journal of Language Sciences, 14(2), 195–215.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Armisen-Marchetti, M.
   (1989) Sapientiae Facies: Étude sur les images de Sénèque [The face of wisdom: Study on Seneca’s images]. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. 10.4000/books.lesbelleslettres.5564
   https://doi.org/10.4000/books.lesbelleslettres.5564 [Google Scholar]
3. Armisen-Marchetti, M.
   (1991) La métaphore et l’ abstraction dans la prose de Sénèque [Metaphor and abstraction in Seneca’s prose]. InP. Grimal (ed.), Sénèque et la prose latine: Neuf exposés suivis de discussions [Seneca and the latin prose: Nine lectures followed by discussions] (pp.99–139). Genève-Vandœuvres: Fondation Hardt.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Bartsch, S.
   (2009) Senecan metaphor and stoic self-instruction. InS. Bartsch & D. Wrey, Seneca and the self (pp.188–217). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bekaert, E.
   (2009) Análisis de las metáforas y metonimias relativas a cinco partes del cuerpo esenciales: El ojo, la oreja, la nariz, la boca y la mano [Analysis of metaphors and metonymies relating to five essential parts of the body: The eye, the ear, the nose, the mouth and the hand]. Ghent: Universiteit Ghent.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Billioti de Gage, C.
   (2012) Hands and manipulations in the grammar and cognitive systems of English. Bordeaux: Michel de Montaigne – Bordeaux III.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Casasanto, D.
   (2009) Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 351–367. 10.1037/a0015854
   https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015854 [Google Scholar]
8. Castaño, E., Gilboy, E., Feijóo, S., Serrat, E., Rostan, C., Hilferty, J. & Cunillera, T.
   (2018) Hand position and response assignment modulate the activation of the valence-space conceptual metaphor. Cognitive Science, 42(7), 2342–2363. 10.1111/cogs.12669
   https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12669 [Google Scholar]
9. Cienki, A.
   (2007) Frames, idealized cognitive models, and domains. InD. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.170–187). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Codoñer Merino, C.
    (1997) Séneca: Obras filosóficas [Seneca: Philosophical works]. InC. Codoñer Merino (Ed.), Historia de la literatura latina [History of Latin literature] (pp.545–556). Madrid: Cátedra.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Díez Velasco, O. I.
    (2000) A cross-linguistic analysis of the nature of some “hand” metonymies in English and Spanish. Atlantis, 22(2), 51–67. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41054991
    [Google Scholar]
12. Dirven, R.
    (2003) Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualisation. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.75–112). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.1.75
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.1.75 [Google Scholar]
13. Fan, H.
    (2017) A study of “hand” metaphors in English and Chinese – Cognitive and cultural perspective. Advances in Literary Study, 5(4), 84–93. 10.4236/als.2017.54007
    https://doi.org/10.4236/als.2017.54007 [Google Scholar]
14. Fedriani, C.
    (2011) Experiential metaphors in Latin: Feelings were containers, movements and things possessed. Transactions of the Philological Society, 109(3), 307–326. 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2011.01284.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2011.01284.x [Google Scholar]
15. Fedriani, C.
    (2016) Ontological and orientational metaphors in Latin: Evidence from the semantics of feelings and emotions. InW. M. Short (Ed.), Embodiment in Latin semantics (pp.115–140). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.174.05fed
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.174.05fed [Google Scholar]
16. García Jurado, F., & López Gregoris, R.
    (1995) Las metáforas de la vida cotidiana en el lenguaje plautino como procedimiento de caracterización de los personajes [Daily life metaphors in the Plautinian language as a procedure for characterisation of the characters]. Studi Italiani Di Filologia Classica, 13(2), 233–245.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Gazzarri, T.
    (2020) The stylus and the scalpel–Theory and practice of metaphor in Seneca’s prose. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110673715
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110673715 [Google Scholar]
18. Gómez Caballero, I.
    (2021) Estudio estilométrico del teatro latino: a vueltas con Octavia y Hercules Oetaeus de Séneca [Stylometric study of latin theather: Around with Seneca’s Octavia and Hercules Oetaeus]. Cuadernos de Filología Clásica. Estudios latinos, 41(1), 57–74. 10.5209/cfcl.77308
    https://doi.org/10.5209/cfcl.77308 [Google Scholar]
19. Goossens, L.
    (2003) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.349–378). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.3.349
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.3.349 [Google Scholar]
20. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
21. Kimmel, M.
    (2010) Why we mix metaphors (and mix them well): Discourse coherence, conceptual metaphor, and beyond. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(1), 97–115. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.017 [Google Scholar]
22. Kövecses, Z.
    (2010) Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Kövecses, Z.
    (2016) A view of “mixed metaphor” within a conceptual metaphor theory framework. InR. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), Mixing metaphor (pp.3–15). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/milcc.6.01kov
    https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.6.01kov [Google Scholar]
24. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
25. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (2018) Metáforas de la vida cotidiana [Metaphors we live by]. Translated byC. G. Marín. Madrid: Cátedra
    [Google Scholar]
26. Luque Moreno, J.
    (1999) Séneca: Tragedias II. Madrid: Gredos.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Marco Simón, F.
    (1986) Topografía cualitativa en la magia romana. Izquierda y derecha como elementos de determinación simbólica [Qualitative topography in Roman magic. Left and right as elements of symbolic representation]. Memorias de historia antigua, 71, 81–90.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Mocciaro, E., & Short, W. M.
    (2019) Toward a cognitive classical linguistics: The embodied basis of constructions in Greek and Latin. Warsaw: De Gruyter Open Poland. 10.1515/9783110616347
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110616347 [Google Scholar]
29. Pérez Gómez, L.
    (1997) La tragedia [Tragedy]. InC. Codoñer (Ed.), Historia de la literatura latina [History of Latin literature] (pp.567–578). Madrid: Cátedra.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
    (1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad [Google Scholar]
31. Seto, K.-I.
    (1999) Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.91–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.06set
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.06set [Google Scholar]
32. Short, W. M.
    (2008) Thinking places, placing thoughts: Spatial metaphors of mental activity in Roman culture. Quaderni Del Ramo d’oro, 11, 106–129.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Short, W. M.
    (2016a) Embodiment in Latin semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.174
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.174 [Google Scholar]
34. Short, W. M.
    (2016b) Spatial metaphors of time in Roman culture. The Classical World, 109(3), 381–412. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44509052. 10.1353/clw.2016.0038
    https://doi.org/10.1353/clw.2016.0038 [Google Scholar]
35. Sjöblad, A.
    (2015) Metaphorical coherence: Studies in Seneca’s epistulae morales. (Studia Graeca et Latina Lundensia; Vol. 20). Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Stepien, M. A.
    (2007) Metáfora y metonimia conceptual en la fraseología de cinco partes del cuerpo humano en español y polaco. Anuario de estudios filológicos, 301, 391–409.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Tarriño Ruiz, E.
    (2021) El adjetivo [The adjective]. InJ. M. Baños (coord.), Sintaxis Latina (vol. 1) [Latin syntax (vol. 1)] (pp.271–300). Madrid: CSIC.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Taylor, J. R.
    (2002) Category extension by metonymy and metaphor. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.323–348). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.323
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.323 [Google Scholar]
39. Traina, A.
    (1974) Lo stile ‘drammatico’ del filosofo Seneca [The ‘dramatic’ style of the philosopher Seneca]. Bologna: Pàtron.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Tur, C.
    (2022) Metonimias y metáforas conceptuales con manus en el teatro latino [Conceptual metonymies and metaphors with manus in Latin drama]. Emerita, 90(1), 121–148. 10.3989/emerita.2022.06.2117
    https://doi.org/10.3989/emerita.2022.06.2117 [Google Scholar]
41. Unceta Gómez, L.
    (2012) Metáforas para pensar: Los verbos latinos de ‘pensamiento’ y ‘opinión’ desde un enfoque diacrónico structural [Metaphors for thinking: The Latin verbs of ‘thought’ and ‘opinion’ from a structural diachronic approach]. InJ. Martínez del Castillo (Ed.), Eugenio Coseriu (1921–2002) en los comienzos del siglo XXI [Eugenio Coseriu (1921–2002) at the beginning of the 21st century.] (pp.169–185). Málaga: Universidad de Málaga.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Zanobi, A.
    (2008) The influence of pantomime on Seneca’s tragedies. InE. Hall & R. Wyles (Eds.), New directions in ancient pantomime (pp.227–257). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199232536.003.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199232536.003.0012 [Google Scholar]
43. Zimmermann, B.
    (2008) Seneca and pantomime. In: E. Hall & R. Wyles (eds.), New directions in ancient pantomime (pp.218–226). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199232536.003.0011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199232536.003.0011 [Google Scholar]