Volume 18, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This article reviews Metaphor and metonymy in the digital age



Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. De Vignemont, F., Majid, A., Jola, C., & Haggard, P.
    (2009) Segmenting the body into parts: Evidence from biases in tactile perception. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(3), 500–512. 10.1080/17470210802000802
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210802000802 [Google Scholar]
  2. Feldman, J.
    (2006) From molecule to metaphor. A neural theory of language. Cambrdige, MA: MIT Press, A Bradford Book. 10.7551/mitpress/3135.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3135.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1976) Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 280(1), 20–32. 10.1111/j.1749‑6632.1976.tb25467.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb25467.x [Google Scholar]
  4. Gibbs, R. W.
    (2015) Does deliberate metaphor theory have a future?. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 73–76. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.016 [Google Scholar]
  5. Gibbs, R. W., & Chen, E.
    (2017) Taking metaphor studies back to the stone age: A reply to Xu, Zhang and Wu 2016. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14, 117–124. 10.1515/ip‑2017‑0005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0005 [Google Scholar]
  6. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2008) The neural theory of metaphor. InR. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.17–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.003 [Google Scholar]
  8. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (1999) Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
    (2018) What kind of reasoning mode is metonymy?InO. Blanco-Carrión, R. Pannain & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: methodological, theoretical and descriptive issues (pp.121–160). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.60.05pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.05pan [Google Scholar]
  11. Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D.
    (2006) Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17, 269–316. 10.1515/COG.2006.007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.007 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A.
    (2014) Cognitive modeling: A linguistics perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Šorm, E., & Steen, G.
    (2013) Processing visual metaphor: A study in thinking out loud. Metaphor and the Social World, 3(1), 1–34. 10.1075/msw.3.1.01sor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.3.1.01sor [Google Scholar]
  14. Steen, G.
    (2011) What does ‘really deliberate’ really mean?: More thoughts on metaphor and consciousness. Metaphor & the Social World, 1, 53–56. 10.1075/msw.1.1.04ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.1.1.04ste [Google Scholar]
  15. (2017) Deliberate metaphor theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1), 1–24. 10.1515/ip‑2017‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Steen, G., Dorst, A., Herrmann, B., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T.
    (2010) A method for linguistic metaphor identification. From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14 [Google Scholar]
  17. Sullivan, K. S.
    (2013) Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.14 [Google Scholar]
  18. Veale, T.
    2011Creative language retrieval: A robust hybrid of information retrieval and linguistic creativity. InProceedings of ACL’2011, the 49th annual meeting of the association of computational linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Zlatev, J.
    (2008) The co-evolution of intersubjectivity and bodily mimesis. InJ. Zlatev, T. Racine, C. Sihna & E. Itkonen (Eds.), The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity (pp.215–244). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.12.13zla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.12.13zla [Google Scholar]
  20. (2013) The mimesis hierarchy of semiotic development: Five stages of intersubjectivity in children. Public Journal of Semiotics, 4, 47–70. 10.37693/pjos.2013.4.8842
    https://doi.org/10.37693/pjos.2013.4.8842 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2018) Meaning making from life to language: The semiotic hierarchy and phenomenology. Cognitive Semiotics, 11(1), 20180001. 10.1515/cogsem‑2018‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2018-0001 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Book Review
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