1887
Volume 24, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Metaphors are cognitive and linguistic tools that allow reasoning. They enable the understanding of abstract domains via elements borrowed from concrete ones. The underlying mechanism in metaphorical mapping is the manipulation of concepts. This article proposes another view on what concepts are and their role in metaphor and reasoning. That is, based on current neuroscientific and behavioural evidence, it is argued that concepts are grounded in perceptual and motor experience with physical and social environments. This definition of concepts is then embedded in the (SMT), a model for metaphorical processing and reasoning. The blended view of structure-mapping and embodied cognition offers an insight into the processes through which the target domain of a metaphor is embodied or realised in terms of its base domain. The implications of the proposed embodied SMT model are then discussed and future topics of investigation are outlined.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.17013.mar
2018-10-19
2019-09-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allen, Micah G. & Karl J. Friston
    2016 From cognitivism to autopoiesis: Towards a computational framework for the embodied mind. Synthese195(6): 2459–2482. 10.1007/s11229‑016‑1288‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1288-5 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barsalou, Lawrence W.
    2012 The human conceptual system. InMichael J. Spivey, Ken McRae & Marc F. Joanisse (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics, 239–258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139029377.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139029377.013 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2008 Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology59(1). 617–645. 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639 [Google Scholar]
  4. Borghi, Annan M.
    2005 Object concepts and action. InDiane Pecher & Rolf A. Zwaan (eds.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking, 8–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511499968.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499968.002 [Google Scholar]
  5. Borghi, Anna, Ferdinand Binkofski, Cristiano Castelfranchi, Felice Cimatti, Claudia Scorolli & Luca Tummolini
    2017 The challenge of abstract concepts. Psychological Bulletin143(3). 263–292. 10.1037/bul0000089
    https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000089 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bowdle, Brian F. & Dedre Gentner
    2005 The career of metaphor. Psychological Review112. 193–216. 10.1037/0033‑295X.112.1.193
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brysbaert, Marc, Amy Beth Warriner & Victor Kuperman
    2014 Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods46(3). 904–911. 10.3758/s13428‑013‑0403‑5
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5 [Google Scholar]
  8. Butz, Martin V.
    2016 Toward a unified sub-symbolic computational theory of cognition. Frontiers in Psychology7(925). 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00925
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00925 [Google Scholar]
  9. Carston, Robyn
    2002Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cevasco, Jazmin & Fernando Marmolejo-Ramos
    2013 The importance of studying the role of prosody in the comprehension of spontaneous spoken discourse. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología45(1). 21–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Connell, Louise & Dermot Lynott
    2012 Strength of perceptual experience predicts word processing performance better than concreteness or imageability. Cognition125(3). 452–465. 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.010 [Google Scholar]
  12. Corballis, Michael C.
    2017 Language evolution: A changing perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences21(4). 229–236. 10.1016/j.tics.2017.01.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.01.013 [Google Scholar]
  13. D’Angiulli, Amedeo, Gordon Griffiths & Fernando Marmolejo-Ramos
    2015 Neural correlates of visualizations of concrete and abstract words in preschool children: A developmental embodied approach. Frontiers in Psychology6(856). 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00856
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00856 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dahl, Cristoph & Ikuma Adachi
    2013 Conceptual metaphorical mapping in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). eLife, 2:e00932. 10.7554/eLife.00932
    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00932 [Google Scholar]
  15. Desai, Rutvik H., Jeffery R. Binder, Lisa L. Conant, Quintino R. Mano & Mark S. Seidenberg
    2011 The neural career of sensory-motor metaphors. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience23(9). 2376–2386. 10.1162/jocn.2010.21596
    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21596 [Google Scholar]
  16. Eskine, Kendall J., Natalie A. Kacinik & Jesse J. Prinz
    2011 A bad taste in the mouth: Gustatory disgust influences moral judgment. Psychological Science22(3). 295–299. 10.1177/0956797611398497
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611398497 [Google Scholar]
  17. Evans, Nicholas & Stephen C. Levinson
    2009 With diversity in mind: Freeing the language sciences from Universal Grammar. Behavioral and Brain Sciences32(5). 472–492. 10.1017/S0140525X09990525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X09990525 [Google Scholar]
  18. Falkenhainer, Brian, Kenneth D. Forbus & Dedre Gentner
    1989 The structure-mapping engine: An algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence41. 1–63. 10.1016/0004‑3702(89)90077‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(89)90077-5 [Google Scholar]
  19. Fauconnier, Gilles
    2001 Conceptual blending and analogy. InDedre Gentner, Keith J. Holyoak, & Boicho N. Kokinov (eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science, 255–285. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Fauconnier, Gilles & George Lakoff
    2013 On metaphor and blending. Cognitive Semiotics5(1–2). 393–399.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner
    1998 Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science22(2), 133–187. 10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fedorenko, Evelina & Rosemary Varley
    2016 Language and thought are not the same thing: Evidence from neuroimaging and neurological patients. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences1369(1). 132–153. 10.1111/nyas.13046
    https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13046 [Google Scholar]
  23. Feldman, Jerome & Srinivas Narayanan
    2004 Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language. Brain and Language89(2). 385–392. 10.1016/S0093‑934X(03)00355‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00355-9 [Google Scholar]
  24. Freund, Patrick, Karl Friston, Allen J. Thompson, Klaas E. Stephan, John Ashburner, Dominik R. Bach, Zoltan Nagy, Gunther Helms, Bogdan Draganski, Siawoosh Mohammadi, Martin E. Schwab, Armin Curt & Nikaulas Weiskopf
    2016 Embodied neurology: An integrative framework for neurological disorders. Brain139(6). 1855–1861. 10.1093/brain/aww076
    https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/aww076 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gallese, Vittorio
    2007 Before and below ‘theory of mind’: Embodied simulation and the neural correlates of social cognition. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society B, 362(1480). 659–669. 10.1098/rstb.2006.2002
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.2002 [Google Scholar]
  26. Gallese, Vittorio & George Lakoff
    2005 The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology22(3). 455–479. 10.1080/02643290442000310
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290442000310 [Google Scholar]
  27. Gapenne, Olivier
    2014 The co-constitution of the self and the world: Action and proprioceptive coupling. Frontiers in Psychology5(594). 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00594
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00594 [Google Scholar]
  28. Geake, John G. & Peter C. Hansen
    2010 Functional neural correlates of fluid and crystallized analogizing. NeuroImage49. 3489–3497. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.09.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.09.008 [Google Scholar]
  29. Gentner, Dedre
    1983 Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science7(2). 155–170. 10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3 [Google Scholar]
  30. 1988 Metaphor as structure mapping: The relational shift. Child Development59. 47–59. 10.2307/1130388
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1130388 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gentner, Dedre, Brian F. Bowdle, Philip Wolff & Consuelo Boronat
    2001 Metaphor is like analogy. InDedre Gentner, Keith J. Holyoak & Boicho N. Kokinov (eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science, 199–253. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Gibbs, Raymond W.
    1996 Why many concepts are metaphorical. Cognition61(3). 309–319. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(96)00723‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00723-8 [Google Scholar]
  33. Gibbs, Raymond W. & Herbert L. Colston
    2012Interpreting Figurative Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139168779
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139168779 [Google Scholar]
  34. Gibbs, Raymond W.
    2013 The real complexities of psycholinguistic research on metaphor. Language Sciences40. 45–52. 10.1016/j.langsci.2013.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2013.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Giora, Rachel
    1997 Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics8(3). 183–206. 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2002 Literal vs. figurative meaning: Different or equal. Journal of Pragmatics34. 457–486. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00045‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00045-5 [Google Scholar]
  37. Glucksberg, Sam
    2003 The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Science7. 92–96. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(02)00040‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00040-2 [Google Scholar]
  38. Grice, Paul
    1975 Logic and conversation. InPeter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Harnad, Steven
    1990 The symbol grounding problem. Physica D42(1–3). 335–346. 10.1016/0167‑2789(90)90087‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2789(90)90087-6 [Google Scholar]
  40. Henrich, Joseph, Steven J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan
    2010 The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences33(2–3). 61–135. 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X [Google Scholar]
  41. Huth, Alexander G., Wendy A. de Heer, Thomas L. Griffiths, Fredric E. Theunissen & Jack L. Gallant
    2016 Natural speech reveals the semantic maps that tile the human cerebral cortex. Nature532. 453–458. 10.1038/nature17637
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17637 [Google Scholar]
  42. Jackendoff, Ray
    1976 Towards an explanatory semantic representation. Linguistic Inquiry7(1). 89–150.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Jamrozik, Aanja, Marguerite McQuire, Eileen R. Cardillo & Anjan Chatterjee
    2016 Metaphors: Bridging embodiment to abstraction. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review23(4). 1080–1089. 10.3758/s13423‑015‑0861‑0
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0861-0 [Google Scholar]
  44. Khatin-Zadeh, Omid & Sedigheh Vhadat
    2015 Abstract and concrete representations in structure-mapping and class-inclusion. Cognitive Linguistic Studies2(2). 349–360. 10.1075/cogls.2.2.07kha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.2.2.07kha [Google Scholar]
  45. Khatin-Zadeh, Omid, Hassan Banaruee, Hooshang Khoshsima & Fernando Marmolejo-Ramos
    2017 The role of motion concepts in understanding non-motion concepts. Behavioral Sciences7(4). 84. 10.3390/bs7040084
    https://doi.org/10.3390/bs7040084 [Google Scholar]
  46. Kousta, Sravroula-Thaleia, Gabriella Vigliocco, David Vinson & Elena Del Campo
    2011 The representation of abstract words: Why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General140(1). 14–34. 10.1037/a0021446
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021446 [Google Scholar]
  47. Lacey, Simon, Randall Stilla & Krishnankutty Sathian
    2012 Metaphorically feeling: Comprehending textural metaphors activates somatosensory cortex. Brain & Language120(3). 416–421. 10.1016/j.bandl.2011.12.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2011.12.016 [Google Scholar]
  48. Lakoff, George
    2014 Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: Metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience8(958). 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00958
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00958 [Google Scholar]
  49. Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
    1980 The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive Science4(2). 195–208. 10.1207/s15516709cog0402_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0402_4 [Google Scholar]
  50. 2003Metaphors we live by. London: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  51. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1986 An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive Science10. 1–40. 10.1207/s15516709cog1001_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1001_1 [Google Scholar]
  52. Lebois, Lauren A., Christin Wilson‐Mendenhall & Laurence W. Barsalou
    2015 Are automatic conceptual cores the gold standard of semantic processing? The context-dependence of spatial meaning in grounded congruency effects. Cognitive Science39. 1764–1801. 10.1111/cogs.12174
    https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12174 [Google Scholar]
  53. Leshinskaya, Anna & Alfonso Caramazza
    2016 For a cognitive neuroscience of concepts: Moving beyond the grounding issue. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review23(4). 991–1001. 10.3758/s13423‑015‑0870‑z
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0870-z [Google Scholar]
  54. Li, Fengying, Xioyan Guo, Lei Zhu, Zhiliang Yang & Zoltan Dienes
    2013 Implicit learning of mappings between forms and metaphorical meanings. Consciousness and Cognition22(1). 174–183. 10.1016/j.concog.2012.11.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.11.011 [Google Scholar]
  55. Lycan, William G.
    2000Philosophy of language: A contemporary introduction. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Malt, Barbara C. & Asifa Majid
    2013 How thought is mapped into words. WIREs Cognitive Science4(6). 583–597. 10.1002/wcs.1251
    https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1251 [Google Scholar]
  57. Marks, Lawrence E.
    1996 On perceptual metaphors. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity11(1). 39–66. 10.1207/s15327868ms1101_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1101_3 [Google Scholar]
  58. Marmolejo-Ramos, Fernando
    2007 Nuevos avances en el estudio científico de la comprensión de textos. Universitas Psychologica6(2). 331–343.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Marmolejo-Ramos, Fernando & Jazmin Cevasco
    2014 Text comprehension as a problem solving situation. Universitas Psychologica13(2). 725–743. 10.11144/Javeriana.UPSY13‑2.tcps
    https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.UPSY13-2.tcps [Google Scholar]
  60. Marmolejo-Ramos, Fernando, Juan C. Correa, Gopal Sakarkar, Giang Ngo, Susana Ruiz-Fernández, Natalie Butcher & Yuki Yamada
    2017 Placing joy, surprise and sadness in space: A cross-linguistic study. Psychological Research81(4). 750–763. 10.1007/s00426‑016‑0787‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0787-9 [Google Scholar]
  61. Martin, Alex
    2016 GRAPES – Grounding representations in action, perception and emotion systems: How object properties and categories are represented in the human brain. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review23(4). 979–990. 10.3758/s13423‑015‑0842‑3
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0842-3 [Google Scholar]
  62. Mathôt, Sebastian, Jonathan Grainger & Kristof Strijkers
    2017 Pupillary responses to words that convey a sense of brightness or darkness. Psychological Science28(8). 1116–1124. 10.1177/0956797617702699
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617702699 [Google Scholar]
  63. McGlone, Matthew & Deanna Manfredi
    2001 Topic-vehicle interaction in metaphor comprehension. Memory & Cognition29. 1209–1219. 10.3758/BF03206390
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206390 [Google Scholar]
  64. Mehl, Matthias R., Charles R. Raison, Thaddeus W. Pace, Jesusa M. G. Arevalo & Steve W. Cole
    2017 Natural language indicators of differential gene regulation in the human immune system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114(47). 12554–12559. 10.1073/pnas.1707373114
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707373114 [Google Scholar]
  65. Mishra, Ramesh K. & Fernando Marmolejo-Ramos
    2010 On the mental representations originating during the interaction between language and vision. Cognitive Processing11(4). 295–305. 10.1007/s10339‑010‑0363‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-010-0363-y [Google Scholar]
  66. Münte, Thomas F., Kolja Schiltz & Marta Kutas
    1998 When temporal order belies conceptual order. Nature395. 71–73. 10.1038/25731
    https://doi.org/10.1038/25731 [Google Scholar]
  67. Nikolić, Danko
    2009 Is synaesthesia actually ideaesthesia? An inquiry into the nature of the phenomenon. InProceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Synaesthesia, Science & Art, 26–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Ortony, Andrew
    1979 Metaphor, language, and thought. InAndrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 1–19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Poyatos, Fernando
    1984 The multichannel reality of discourse: Language-paralanguage-kinesics and the totality of communicative systems. Language Sciences6(2). 307–337. 10.1016/S0388‑0001(84)80022‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(84)80022-4 [Google Scholar]
  70. Prat, Chantel S., Robert A. Mason & Marcel A. Just
    2012 An fMRI investigation of analogical mapping in metaphor comprehension: The influence of context and individual cognitive capacities on processing demands. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition38(2). 282–294.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Raposo, Aan, Helen Moss, Emanuel A. Stamatakis & Loraine K. Tyler
    2009 Modulation of motor and premotor cortices by actions, action words, and action sentences. Neuropsychologia47(2). 388–396. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.09.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.09.017 [Google Scholar]
  72. Schmidt, Gwenda & Carol Seger
    2009 Neural correlates of metaphor processing: The roles of figurativeness, familiarity and difficulty. Brain and Cognition71. 375–386. 10.1016/j.bandc.2009.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  73. Sijtsma, Klaas
    2015 Playing with data – Or how to discourage questionable research practices and stimulate researchers to do things right. Psychometrika81(1). 1–15. 10.1007/s11336‑015‑9446‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-015-9446-0 [Google Scholar]
  74. Smith, Linda B. & Eliana Colunga
    2012 Developing categories and concepts. InMichael J. Spivey, Ken McRae & Marc F. Joanisse (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics, 283–307. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139029377.015
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139029377.015 [Google Scholar]
  75. Sperber, Dan & Deidre Wilson
    1995Relevance: Communication and cognition, 2nd edn.Oxford/Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 2008 A deflationary account of metaphors. InRaymond W. Gibbs, Jr. (ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 84–105. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007 [Google Scholar]
  77. Tourangeau, Roger & Robert J. Sternberg
    1981 Aptness in metaphor. Cognitive Psychology13. 27–55. 10.1016/0010‑0285(81)90003‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(81)90003-7 [Google Scholar]
  78. Tremblay, Pascale & Anthony S. Dick
    2016 Broca and Wernicke are dead, or moving past the classic model of language neurobiology. Brain and Language162. 60–71. 10.1016/j.bandl.2016.08.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2016.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  79. Velasco, Carlos, Alejandro Salgado-Montejo, Andrew J. Elliot, Andy T. Woods, Jorge Alvarado & Charles Spence
    2016 The shapes associated with approach/avoidance words. Motivation and Emotion40(5). 689–702. 10.1007/s11031‑016‑9559‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-016-9559-5 [Google Scholar]
  80. Vélez, Jorge I. & Fernando Marmolejo-Ramos
    2016 Los secretos de Cien Años de Soledad: Una aproximación estilométrica para la investigación en Psicolingüística. Revista Colombiana de Psicología25(2). 265–288. 10.15446/rcp.v25n2.50742
    https://doi.org/10.15446/rcp.v25n2.50742 [Google Scholar]
  81. Wilson, Deidre & Robyn Carston
    2006 Metaphor, relevance and the emergent property issue. Mind and Language21. 404–433. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2006.00284.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00284.x [Google Scholar]
  82. Wolff, Philip & Dedre Gentner
    2000 Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition26. 529–541.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 2011 Structure‐mapping in metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science35(8). 1456–1488. 10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2011.01194.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01194.x [Google Scholar]
  84. Whitehead, Alfred N.
    1978Process and reality. New York: The Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Xue, Jin, Fernando Marmolejo-Ramos & Xuna Pei
    2015 The linguistic context effects on the processing of body-object interaction words: An ERP study on second language learners. Brain Research1613. 37–48. 10.1016/j.brainres.2015.03.050
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2015.03.050 [Google Scholar]
  86. Zeman, Adam, Michaela Dewar & Sergio Della Sala
    2015 Lives without imagery – Congenital aphantasia. Cortex73. 378–380. 10.1016/j.cortex.2015.05.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.05.019 [Google Scholar]
  87. Zhong, Chen-Bo & Geoffrey J. Leonardelli
    2008 Cold and lonely: Does social exclusion literally feel cold?Psychological Science19(9). 838–842. 10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2008.02165.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02165.x [Google Scholar]
  88. Zhong, Chen-Bo & Katie Liljenquist
    2006 Wash away your sins: Threatened morality and physical cleansing. Science313(5792). 1451–1452.10.1126/science.1130726
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1130726 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.17013.mar
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.17013.mar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): concepts , embodied cognition , language , metaphor , metaphorical mapping and structure-mapping
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