Volume 16, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1874-8767
  • E-ISSN: 1874-8775
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The paper seeks to provide a cognitive-linguistic re-interpretation of the centuries-old notion of . The investigation presented here draws on 317 data sources selected through a scoping literature review. The paper demonstrates how , etc. all represent metonymically one and the same multi-faceted underlying concept. That concept is argued to result from the amalgamated operation of conceptual metaphor and conceptual metonymy combined with the simultaneous and dynamic operation of (what are known in gestalt psychology as) profiling shifts. The paper further demonstrates how such shifts in profiling operate on text-worlds and discourse-worlds to bring about perceptions of a text’s ‘progression’ and of .


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ansary, Hasan & Esmat Babaii
    2009 A cross-cultural analysis of English newspaper editorials: A systemic functional view of text for contrastive rhetoric research. RELC Journal40(2). 211–249. 10.1177/0033688209105867
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688209105867 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aristotle
    Aristotle 1991 (trans.G. Kennedy). On Rhetoric. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Arksey, Hilary & Lisa O’Malley
    2005 Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice8(1). 19–32. 10.1080/1364557032000119616
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bal, Mieke
    2009Narratology: Introduction to the theory of narrative (3rd edition). Toronto: University of Toronto.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Barcelona, Antonio
    (ed.) 2000Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 2011 Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. InReka Benczes, Antonio Barcelona & Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a consensus view, 7–57. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.02bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.02bar [Google Scholar]
  7. Barsalou, Lawrence
    2006 Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition111. 211–227. 10.3758/BF03196968
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196968 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2016 Situated conceptualization: Theory and applications. InYann Coello & Martin H. Fischer (eds.), Foundations of embodied cognition, Volume 1: Perceptual and emotional embodiment, 11–37. East Sussex: Psychology.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2020 Challenges and opportunities for grounding cognition. Journal of Cognition3(1). 1–24. 10.5334/joc.116
    https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.116 [Google Scholar]
  10. Barsalou, Lawrence, Ava Santos, W. Kyle Simmons & Christine Wilson
    2008 Language and simulation in conceptual processing. InManuel de Vega, Arthur Glenberg & Arthur Graesser (eds.), Symbols, embodiment, and meaning, 245–283. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199217274.003.0013
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199217274.003.0013 [Google Scholar]
  11. Beaugrande, Robert de & Wolfgang Dressler
    1981Introduction to text linguistics. Longman: London. 10.4324/9781315835839
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315835839 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bolgün, M. Ali & Mangla Asham
    2017 A contrastive rhetoric analysis of English and Hindi editorials. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics21(2). 15–39. 10.25256/PAAL.21.2.2
    https://doi.org/10.25256/PAAL.21.2.2 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bolognesi, Marianna & Paola Vernillo
    2019 How abstract concepts emerge from metaphorical images: The metonymic way. Language & Communication691. 26–41. 10.1016/j.langcom.2019.05.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2019.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  14. Borghi, Anna & Lawrence Barsalou
    2021 Perspective in the conceptualization of categories. Psychological Research851. 697–719. 10.1007/s00426‑019‑01269‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01269-0 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bowdle, Brian & Dedre Gentner
    2005 The career of metaphor. Psychological Review112(1). 193–216. 10.1037/0033‑295X.112.1.193
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193 [Google Scholar]
  16. Brewer, William & Edward Lichtenstein
    1985 The story schema: Universal and culture-specific properties. InDavid Olson, Nancy Torrance & Angela Hildyard (eds.), Literacy, language, and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing, 167–194. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Charteris-Black, Jonathan
    2005Politicians and rhetorical. The persuasive power of metaphor. London: Palgrave. 10.1057/9780230501706
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230501706 [Google Scholar]
  18. Cohn, Neil
    2013 Visual narrative structure. Cognitive Science341. 413–452. 10.1111/cogs.12016
    https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12016 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2019 Visual narratives and the mind: Comprehension, cognition, and learning. Psychology of Learning and Motivation701. 97–127. 10.1016/bs.plm.2019.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.plm.2019.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  20. Coleman, Linda & Paul Kay
    1981 Prototype semantics: The English verb lie. Language571. 1–16. 10.1353/lan.1981.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1981.0002 [Google Scholar]
  21. Coulson, Seana
    2008 Metaphor comprehension and the brain. InRaymond W. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 177–194. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.012 [Google Scholar]
  22. Coulson, Seana & Vicky Lai
    2016 Editorial: The Metaphorical Brain. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience91. 699. 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00699
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00699 [Google Scholar]
  23. Croft, William
    2001Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Cumming, Susanna & Tsuyoshi Ono
    1997 Discourse and grammar. InTeun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as structure and process, 112–137. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781446221884.n4
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446221884.n4 [Google Scholar]
  25. Dalrymple, Kirsten, Alexander Gray, Brielle Perlel, Elina Birmingham, Walter Bischof, Jason Barton & Alan Kingstone
    2013 Eyeing the eyes in social scenes: Evidence for top-down control of stimulus selection in simultanagnosia. Cognitive Neuropsychology30(1). 25–40. 10.1080/02643294.2013.778234
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2013.778234 [Google Scholar]
  26. Da Silva, Augusto Soares
    (ed.) 2021Figurative language – Intersubjectivity and usage. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.11 [Google Scholar]
  27. Devitt, Amy
    2015 Genre Performances: John Swales’ Genre Analysis and Rhetorical-Linguistic Genre Studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes91. 44–51. 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.05.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.05.008 [Google Scholar]
  28. Dijk, Teun A. van
    1980Macrostructures. An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction, and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (ed.) 1997Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781446221884
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446221884 [Google Scholar]
  30. Dirven, René
    2002 Metonymy and metaphor: Different strategies of conceptualisation. InRené Dirven & Ralf Pörings (eds.), 75–112. 10.1515/9783110219197.1.75
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.1.75 [Google Scholar]
  31. Dirven, René & Ralf Pörings
    (eds.) 2002Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Dymock, Susan
    2005 Teaching expository text structure awareness. The Reading Teacher59 (2). 177–181. 10.1598/RT.59.2.7
    https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.59.2.7 [Google Scholar]
  33. Eggins, Suzanne & Diana Slade
    1997Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Eggins, Suzanne & J. R. Martin
    1997 Genres and registers of discourse. InTeun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as structure and process. Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary Introduction Vol.1, 230–256. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781446221884.n9
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446221884.n9 [Google Scholar]
  35. Emmott, Catherine
    1997Narrative comprehension: A discourse perspective. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/oso/9780198236498.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198236498.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Emmott, Catherine & Marc Alexander
    2009Schemata. The living handbook of narratology. wikis.sub.uni-hamburg.de/lhn/index.php/Schemata
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Eubanks, Philip
    2010Metaphor and writing: Figurative thought in the discourse of written communication. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511761041
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511761041 [Google Scholar]
  38. Feldman, Martha, Kaj Sköldberg, Ruth Nicole Brown & Debra Horner
    2004 Making sense of stories: A rhetorical approach to narrative analysis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory14(2). 147–170. 10.1093/jopart/muh010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muh010 [Google Scholar]
  39. Felluga, Dino
    2011General introduction to narratology. Introductory guide to critical theory. www.purdue.edu/guidetotheory/narratology/modules/introduction.html
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Fludernik, Monika
    2002Towards a ‘natural’ narratology. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203432501
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203432501 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2010 Narratology in the twenty-first century: The cognitive approach to narrative author(s). Publications of the Modern Language Association of America125(4). 924–930. 10.1632/pmla.2010.125.4.924
    https://doi.org/10.1632/pmla.2010.125.4.924 [Google Scholar]
  42. Gavins, Joanna
    2007Text World Theory: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University. 10.1515/9780748629909
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9780748629909 [Google Scholar]
  43. Gavins, Joanna & Ernestine Lahey
    (eds.) 2016World Building: Discourse in the Mind. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Geeraerts, Dirk
    2016 Prospects and problems of prototype theory. Diacronia41. 1–16. 10.17684/i4A53en
    https://doi.org/10.17684/i4A53en [Google Scholar]
  45. Gibbs, Raymond W.
    1994 Signalling in discourse: A functional analysis of a common discourse pattern in written and spoken English. InMichael Coulthard (ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis, 26–45. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 2011 Evaluating conceptual metaphor theory. Discourse Processes48(8). 529–562. 10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2022 Looking for metaphor in the natural world. InAlexandra Bagasheva, Bozhil Hristov & Nelly Tincheva (eds.), 43–61. 10.1075/ftl.17.02gib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.17.02gib [Google Scholar]
  48. Glucksberg, Sam
    2008 How metaphors create categories – quickly. InRaymond W. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 67–83. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.006 [Google Scholar]
  49. Glucksberg, Sam & Matthew McGlone
    1999 When love is not a journey: What metaphors mean. Journal of Pragmatics311. 1541–1558. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00003‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00003-X [Google Scholar]
  50. Goossens, Louis
    1990 Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. InRené Dirven & Ralf Pörings (eds.), 349–377. 10.1515/9783110219197.3.349
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.3.349 [Google Scholar]
  51. Halliday, M. A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan
    1976Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 1985Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Melbourne: Deakin University.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Herman, David
    2009Basic elements of narrative. Oxford: Wiley. 10.1002/9781444305920
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444305920 [Google Scholar]
  54. 2018Narratology beyond the human: Storytelling and animal life. New York: OUP. 10.1093/oso/9780190850401.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190850401.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  55. Herman, David, James Phelan, Peter Rabinowitz, Brian Richardson & Robyn Warhol
    (eds.) 2012Narrative theory: Core concepts and critical debates. Ohio: Ohio State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Hoey, Michael
    1994 Signalling in discourse: A functional analysis of a common discourse pattern in written and spoken English. InMichael Coulthard (ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis, 26–45. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Hoskins, Suzanne
    1986 Text superstructure. Journal of Reading29(6). 538–543.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Hudson, Alida, Karol Owens, Julie Moore, A. Karol, Kacee Lambright & Kausalai Wijekumar
    2021 “What’s the Main Idea?”: Using Text Structure to Build Comprehension. 10.1002/trtr.2016
    https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2016 [Google Scholar]
  59. Iversen, Stefan
    2014 Narratives in rhetorical discourse. InPeter Hühn, Jan Christoph Meister, John Pier & Wolf Schmid (eds.), 575–587. Handbook of Narratology, Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110316469.575
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110316469.575 [Google Scholar]
  60. Kearns, Michael
    1999Rhetorical Narratology. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Khan, Khalid, Regina Kunz, Jos Kleijnen & Gerd Antes
    2003 Five steps to conducting a systematic review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine96(3). 118–21. 10.1177/014107680309600304
    https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680309600304 [Google Scholar]
  62. Koffka, Kurt
    1935Principles of gestalt psychology. London: Lund Humphries.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Kövecses, Zoltan
    2002Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/oso/9780195145113.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195145113.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  64. 2020Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/9781108859127
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108859127 [Google Scholar]
  65. Labov, William
    2010 Oral narratives of personal experience. InPatrick Hogan (ed.), Cambridge encyclopedia of the language sciences, 546–548. New York: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Labov, William & Joshua Waletzky
    1967 Narrative analysis. InJune Helm (ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts, 12–44. Seattle: University of Washington.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Lakoff, George
    2007 Cognitive models and prototype theory. InVyvyan Evans, Benjamin K. Bergen & Jörg Zinken (eds.), The Cognitive Linguistics reader, 132–168. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 2014 Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience81. 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00958
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00958 [Google Scholar]
  69. Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 1999Philosophy in the flesh. London: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1987Foundations of cognitive grammar Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 2008Foundations of cognitive grammar. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  73. Levac, Danielle, Heather Colquhoun & Kelly K. O’Brien
    2010 Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science51. 69. 10.1186/1748‑5908‑5‑69
    https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 [Google Scholar]
  74. Littlemore, Jeannette
    2015Metonymy: Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thought and Communication (Cambridge Studies in Cognitive Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107338814
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338814 [Google Scholar]
  75. Mann, William C.
    2005Rhetorical structure theory. www.sfu.ca/rst/
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Mann, William C., Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen & Sandra A. Thompson
    1992 Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis. InWilliam C. Mann & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text, 39–78. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.16.04man
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.16.04man [Google Scholar]
  77. McKinley, Jim
    2014 The impact of Western criticisms of Japanese rhetorical approaches on learners of Japanese. Language learning in higher education4(2). 303–319. 10.1515/cercles‑2014‑0017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2014-0017 [Google Scholar]
  78. Medhurst, Martin J.
    1987 Eisenhower’s “atoms for peace” speech: A case study in the strategic use of language. Communication Monographs54(2). 204–20. 10.1080/03637758709390226
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758709390226 [Google Scholar]
  79. Mitrović, Jelena, Cliff O’Reilly, Miljana Mladenović & Siegfried Handschuh
    2017 Ontological representations of rhetorical figures for argument mining. Argument & Computation8(3). 267–287. 10.3233/AAC‑170027
    https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-170027 [Google Scholar]
  80. Munn, Zachary, Micah D. J. Peters, Cindy Stern, Catalin Tufanaru, Alexa McArthur & Edoardo Aromataris
    2018 Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology181. 143. 10.1186/s12874‑018‑0611‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x [Google Scholar]
  81. Musolff, Andreas
    2006 Metaphor scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol21(1). 23–38. 10.1207/s15327868ms2101_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2101_2 [Google Scholar]
  82. 2017 Truths, lies and figurative scenarios – metaphors at the heart of Brexit. Journal of Language and Politics16(5). 641–657. 10.1075/jlp.16033.mus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.16033.mus [Google Scholar]
  83. Nicholson, Tom & Sue Dymock
    2018Writing for impact: Teaching students how to write with a plan and spell well (Vol.1 & 21). Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
    2007 Metonymy. InDirk Geeraerts, René Dirven & Hubert Cuyckens. (eds.), 236–263. Handbook of cognitive linguistics, Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Phelan, James
    1996Narrative as rhetoric: Technique, audiences, ethics, ideology. Ohio: Ohio State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Pragglejaz Group
    Pragglejaz Group 2007 MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol22(1). 1–39. 10.1080/10926480709336752
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752 [Google Scholar]
  87. Radden, Günter
    2002 How metonymic are metaphors?InRené Dirven & Ralf Pörings (eds.), 407–434. 10.1515/9783110219197.407
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.407 [Google Scholar]
  88. Ritchie, David L.
    2013Metaphor. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139136822
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139136822 [Google Scholar]
  89. Rosch, Eleanor
    1973 Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology41. 328–50. 10.1016/0010‑0285(73)90017‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0 [Google Scholar]
  90. 1975 Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology71. 532–47. 10.1016/0010‑0285(75)90021‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90021-3 [Google Scholar]
  91. Rubin, Edgar
    1921Visuell wahrgenommene figuren: Studien in psychologischer analyse. Kobenhaven: Gyldendalske boghandel.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J.
    2000 The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. InAntonio Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads, 109–132. Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 2020 Understanding figures of speech: Dependency relations and organizational patterns. Language & Communication711. 16–38. 10.1016/j.langcom.2019.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2019.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  94. 2022 Resemblance dimensions in figurative language use. InAlexandra Bagasheva, Bozhil Hristov & Nelly Tincheva (eds.), 15–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & Lorena Pérez-Hernández
    2011 The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol261. 161–185. 10.1080/10926488.2011.583189
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.583189 [Google Scholar]
  96. Rumelhart, David
    1975 Notes on a schema for stories. InDaniel G. Bobrow & Allan Collins (eds.), Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science, 211–236. New York: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑108550‑6.50013‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-108550-6.50013-6 [Google Scholar]
  97. Rumelhart, David & Andrew Ortony
    1977 The representation of knowledge in memory. InRichard Anderson, Rand J. Spiro & William Montague (eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge, 99–135. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Sanford, Anthony J. & Catherine Emmott
    2012Mind, brain and narrative. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139084321
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084321 [Google Scholar]
  99. Semino, Elena
    2008Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Sharifian, Farzad
    2017Cultural linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/clscc.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.8 [Google Scholar]
  101. Sinclair, John & Malcolm Coulthard
    1975Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Smith, Edward E. & Douglas E. Medin
    1981Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. 10.4159/harvard.9780674866270
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674866270 [Google Scholar]
  103. Steen, Gerard, Aletta G. Dorst, Berenike J. Herrmann, Anna Kaal, Tina Krennmayr & Tryntje Pasma
    2010A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14 [Google Scholar]
  104. Stockwell, Peter
    2020Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction (2nd edn.). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Swales, John
    1990Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Swales, John & Christine Feak
    1994Academic writing for graduate students. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Taboada, Maite & William C. Mann
    2006 Rhetorical structure theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies8(3). 432–459. 10.1177/1461445606061881
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606061881 [Google Scholar]
  108. Talmy, Leonard
    2000Toward a cognitive semantics Vol. 1 & 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Taylor, John R.
    2003Linguistic categorization (3rd edn.). Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/oso/9780199266647.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199266647.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  110. Tincheva, Nelly
    2015Text structure: A window into discourse, context and mind. Sofia: POLIS.
    [Google Scholar]
  111. 2021 Blurring the boundaries between real worlds, discourse worlds and text worlds. Slavia Meridionalis211. Art. 2381. 10.11649/sm.2381
    https://doi.org/10.11649/sm.2381 [Google Scholar]
  112. 2022 Political speeches: Conceptual metaphor meets text worlds and gestalt psychology’s shifts in profiling. InAlexandra Bagasheva, Bozhil Hristov & Nelly Tincheva (eds.), 85–106. 10.1075/ftl.17.04tin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.17.04tin [Google Scholar]
  113. Ungerer, Friedrich & Hans-Jörg Schmid
    2006An introduction to cognitive linguistics (2nd edn.). London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Wang, Yuemin, Hongyun Wu & Gang Cui
    2020 Rhetorical structure analysis of prepared speeches and argumentative essays by Chinese advanced English learners. Text & Talk40(2). 219–240. 10.1515/text‑2020‑2054
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2020-2054 [Google Scholar]
  115. Werth, Paul
    1999Text worlds: Representing conceptual space in discourse. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Wertheimer, Max
    1938 Laws of organization in perceptual forms. Psycologische Forschung41. 301–350. 10.1007/BF00410640
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00410640 [Google Scholar]
  117. Winter, Eugene
    1994 Clause relations as information structure: Two basis text structures in English. InMalcolm Coulthard (ed.), Advances in written text analysis, 46–68. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error