Search results

Filters

  • Journals
  • Authors
  • Keywords
  • Date
  • Type

Search results

Number of results: 3
items per page: 25 50 75
Sort by:
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate four sources of implied motion in static images (a moving object as the source of implied motion, hand movements of the image creator as the source of implied motion, past experiences of the observer as the source of implied motion, and fictive movement of a point across an image as the source of implied motion). In the experiment of the study, participants orally described 16 static images that appeared on the screen of a computer. The aim was to find whether participants had used any motion-related word to describe each image. It was assumed that using motion-related words to describe a static image was an indication that the image had created a sense of motion for the observer. These results indicated that all four types of implied motion could create a significant sense of motion for the observer. Based on these results, it is suggested that observing these images could lead to simulating the actions involved in those motion events and the activation of the motor system. Finally, it is proposed that the three characteristics of being rule-based (clearly-defined), continuous, and gradual are critical in perceiving that image as a fictive motion.
Go to article

Bibliography


Babcock, M. K., & Freyd, J. J. (1988). Perception of dynamic information in static handwritten forms. The American Journal of Psychology, 101(1), 111–130.
Carlile, S., & Leung, J. (2016). The perception of auditory motion. Trends in Hearing, 20(1), 1-19.
Cattaneo, Z., Schiavi, S., Silvanto, J., & Nadal M. (2017). A TMS study on the contribution of visual area V5 to the perception of implied motion in art and its appreciation. Cognitive Neuroscience, 8(1), 59- 68. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2015.1083968.
Chen, I. H., Zhao, Q., Long, Y., Lu, Q., & Huang, C. R. (2019). Mandarin Chinese modality exclusivity norms. PLoS ONE,14, e0211336. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211336
Filipović Đurđević, D. F., Popović Stijačić, M., & Karapandžić, J. (2016). A quest for sources of perceptual richness: Several candidates. In S Halupka-Rešetar & S. Martínez-Ferreiro (Eds.), Studies in language and mind (pp. 187–238). Novi Sad, Serbia: Filozofski fakultet uNovom Sadu.
Freyd, J. J. (1983a). Representing the dynamics of a static form. Memory & Cognition, 11(4), 342-346.
Freyd, J. J. (1983b). The mental representation of movement when static stimuli are viewed. Perception & Psychophysics, 33(6), 575- 581.
Futterweit, L. R., & Beilin, H. (1994). Recognition memory for movement in photographs: A developmental study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 57(2), 163-179.
Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuro-psychology, 22(3), 455-479.
Getzmann, S., & Lewald, J. (2009). Constancy of target velocity as a critical factor in the emergence of auditory and visual representa-tional momentum. Experimental Brain Research, 193(3), 437–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-008-1641-0
James, K. H., & Gauthier, I. (2006). Letter processing automatically recruits a sensory‐motor brain network. Neuropsychologia, 44(14), 2937– 2949.
Hubbard, T. L. (2005). Representational momentum and related displacements in spatial memory: A review of the findings. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5), 822-851.
Hubbard, T. L. (2018). Influences on representational momentum. In T. L. Hubbard (Ed.). Spatial Biases in Perception and Cogni-tion (pp. 121-138). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hubbard, T. L. (2019). Momentum-like effects and the dynamics of perception, cognition, and action. Attention, Perception, & Psycho-physics, 81(3), 2155–2170. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01770-z
Kim, C. Y., & Blake, R. (2007). Seeing what you understand: Brain activity accompanying perception of implied motion in abstract paintings. Spatial Vision, 20(6), 545–560.
Kourtzi, Z., & Kanwisher, N. (2000). Activation in human MT/MST by static images with implied motion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(1), 48–55.
Langacker, R. W. (1986). Abstract motion. Proceedings of the 12th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (p. 455– 471). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Leyton, M. (1989). Inferring causal history from shape. Cognitive Science, 13(3), 357-387.
Longcamp, M., Anton, J. L., Roth, M., & Velay, J. L. (2003). Visual presentation of single letters activates a premotor area involved in writing. Neuroimage, 19(4), 1492– 1500.
Longcamp, M., Hlushchuk, Y., & Hari, R. (2011). What differs in visual recognition of handwritten vs. printed letters? An fMRI study. Human Brain Mapping, 32(8), 1250-1259.
Lorteije, J. A., Barraclough, N. E., Jellema, T., Raemaekers, M., Duijnhouwer, J., Xiao, D., et al. (2010). Implied motion activation in cortical area MT can be explained by visual low-level features. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(6), 1533-1548.
Lorteije, J. A., Kenemans, J. L., Jellema, T., van der Lubbe, R. H., de Heer, F., & van Wezel, R. J. (2006). Delayed response to animate implied motion in human motion processing areas. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(2),158–168.
Lorteije, J. A., Kenemans, J. L., Jellema, T., van der Lubbe, R. H., Lommers, M. W., & vanWezel, R. J. (2007). Adaptation to real motion reveals direction-selective interactions between real and implied motion processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(8), 1231–1240.
Matlock, T. (2004). The conceptual motivation of fictive motion. In G. Radden & R. Dirven (eds.), Motivation in Grammar, 221–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Matlock, T. (2010). Abstract motion is no longer abstract. Language and Cognition, 2(2), 243–260.
Matsumoto, Y. (1996). Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(2), 183–226.
Miklashevsky, A. (2018). Perceptual experience norms for 506 Russian nouns: Modality rating, spatial localization, manipulability, image-ability and other variables. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47, 641–661.
Mishra, R. (2009). Interaction of language and visual attention: Evidence from production and comprehension. Progress in Brain Research, 176, 277–292.
Osaka, N., Matsuyoshia, D., Ikeda, T., & Osaka, M. (2010). Implied motion because of instability in Hokusai Manga activates the human motion-sensitive extrastriate visual cortex: An fMRI study of the impact of visual art. NeuroReport, 21(4), 264–267.
Pavan, A., Cuturi, L. F., Maniglia, M., Casco, C., & Campana, G. (2011). Implied motion from static photographs influences the perceived position of stationary objects. Vision Research, 51(1), 187-94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2010.11.004.
Rojo, A., & Valenzuela, J. (2003). Fictive motion in English and Spanish. International Journal of English Studies, 3(2), 123–150.
Saygin, A. P., McCullough, S., Alac, M., & Emmorey, K. (2010). Modulation of BOLD response in motion sensitive lateral temporal cortex by real and fictive motion sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(11), 2480–2490.
Sbriscia-Fioretti, B., Berchio, C., Freedberg, D., Gallese, V., Umiltà, M. A. (2013). ERP modulation during observation of abstract paintings by Franz Kline. PLoS One. 8(10):e75241. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0075241.
Senior, C., Barnes, J., Giampietro, V., Simmons, A., Bullmore, E. T., Brammer, M., et al. (2000). The functional neuroanatomy of implicit- motion perception or representational momentum. Current Biology, 10(1), 16–22.
Speed, L. J., & Majid, A. (2017). Dutch modality exclusivity norms: Simulating perceptual modality in space. Behavior Research Methods,49, 2204–2218.
Talmy, L. (1996). Fictive motion in language and “ception”. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel & M. F. Garrett (eds.), Language and Space, 211–276. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thakral, P. P., Moo, L. R., & Slotnick, S. D. (2012). A neural mechanism for aesthetic experience. Neuroreport, 23(5), 310-313. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e328351759f.
Umilta', M. A., Berchio, C., Sestito, M., Freedberg, D., & Gallese, V. (2012). Abstract art and cortical motor activation: an EEG study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 311. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00311
Wallentin, M., Lund, T. E., Østergaard, S., Østergaard, L., & Roepstorff, A. (2005). Motion verb sentences activate left posterior middle temporal cortex despite static context. NeuroReport, 16(6), 649-652.
Williams, A. L., & Wright, M. J. (2010). Static representations of speed and their neural correlates in human area MT/V5. NeuroReport, 20(16), 1466–1470.
Winawer, J., Huk, A. C., & Boroditsky, L. (2008). A motion aftereffect from still photographs depicting motion. Psychological Science, 19 (3), 276–283.
Zhao, X., Wang, J., Li, J., Luo, G., Li, T., Chatterjee, A., Zhang, W., & He, X. (2020). The neural mechanism of aesthetic judgments of dynamic landscapes: an fMRI study. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 20774. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-77658-y
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Omid Khatin-Zadeh
1

  1. School of Foreign Languages, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This article looks at metaphor aptness from the perspective of the class-inclusion model of metaphor comprehension and those models that assume a componential nature for the meanings of concepts. When the metaphor X is a Y is processed, the concept of X is included in a metaphorical class that is represented by Y, which is usually the most typical member of the metaphorical class. Degree of saliency of the defining feature in the vehicle and the extent to which this feature matches a relevant dimension of topic is the key factor in the degree of aptness of the metaphor. Degree of aptness becomes more complex in those metaphors that describe an abstract concept in terms of another concept. These metaphors include X into a metaphorical class through the mediation of those concepts that are associated to the abstract concept. If the associated concepts have a high degree of typicality in the metaphorical class, they could be better mediators for including the abstract concept into the metaphorical class. The variations of abstract concepts across individuals and their dependency on contexts and cultures could explain why such metaphors may have different degrees of aptness for different people.
Go to article

Bibliography

Al-Azary, H., Buchanan, L., (2017). Novel metaphor comprehension: Semantic neighbourhood density interacts with concreteness. Memory & Cognition, 45(2), 296–307. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0650-7
Andrews, M., Frank, S., Vigliocco, G., (2014). Reconciling embodied and distributional accounts of meaning in language. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6(3), 359–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12096
Banaruee, H., Khoshsima, H., Khatin-Zadeh, O., Askari, A., (2017). Suppression of semantic features in metaphor comprehension. Cogent Psychology, 4(1), 1409323. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2017.1409323
Barsalou, L., W., (1987). The instability of graded structure: Implications for the nature of concepts. In: Neisser, U., (Ed.), Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization (pp. 101–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Becker, A. H. (1997). Emergent and common features influence metaphor interpretation. Metaphor and Symbol, 12(4), 243–259. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1204_3
Blasko, D.,G., Connine, C., M., (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(2), 295-308. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.2.295
Borghi, A., M., Binkofski, F., Castelfranchi, C., Cimatti, F., Scorolli, C., Tummolini, L., (2017). The challenge of abstract concepts. Psychological Bulletin, 143(3), 263–292.
Caramazza, A., Hillis, A., E., Rapp, B., C., Romani, C., (1990). The multiple semantics hypothesis: Multiple confusions? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 7(3), 161–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643 299008253441
Chiappe, D., L., Kennedy, J., M., (1999). Aptness predicts preference for metaphors or similes, as well as recall bias. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(4), 668-676. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03212977
Chiappe, D., L., Kennedy, J., M., Chiappe, P., (2003). Aptness is more important than comprehensibility in preference for metaphors and similes. Poetics, 31(1), 51-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-422x (03)00003-2
Chiappe, D. L., Kennedy, J. M., & Smykowski, T. (2003). Reversibility, aptness, and the conventionality of metaphors and similes. Metaphor & Symbol, 18(2), 85-105. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1802_2
Cree, G., S., McNorgan, C., McRae, K., (2006). Distinctive features hold a privileged status in the computationof word meaning: implications for theories of semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(4), 643–658.
Fernandino, L., Humphries, C. J., Seidenberg, M. S., Gross, W. L., Conant, L. L., & Binder, J. R. (2015). Predicting brain activation patterns associated with individual lexical concepts based on five sensory-motor attributes. Neuropsychologia, 76, 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.4.643
Gernsbacher, M., A., Keysar, B., Robertson, R., R., W., Werner, N., K., (2001). The role of suppression and enhancement in understanding metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(3), 433-450. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2782
Gineste, M., D., Indurkhya, B., Scart, V., (2000). Emergence of features in metaphor comprehension. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(3), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1503_1
Glucksberg, S., (2001). Understanding Figurative Language: From metaphors to idioms. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195111095.001.0001
Glucksberg, S., (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 92-96.
Glucksberg, S., (2008). How metaphor creates categories – quickly! In R. Gibbs (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, (pp. 67- 83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo 9780511816802.006
Glucksberg, S., Haught, C., (2006a). Can Florida become like the next Florida? When metaphoric comparisons fail. Psychological Science, 17(11), 935-938. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01807.x
Glucksberg, S., Haught, C., (2006b). On the Relation Between Metaphor and Simile: When Comparison Fails. Mind and Language, 21(3), 360–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00282.x
Glucksberg, S., Keysar, B., (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.97.1.3
Glucksberg, S., Keysar, B., (1993). How metaphors work. In: Ortony, A., (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed, pp. 401-424). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo 9781139173865.020
Glucksberg, S., Manfredi. D., A., McGlone, M., S., (1997). Metaphor comprehension: How metaphors create categories. In: Wards, T., B., Smith, S., M., Vaid, J., (Eds.), Creative Thought: An Investigation of Conceptual Metaphors and Processes (pp. 326-350). Washington, DC: American Psychology Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10227-013
Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M., S., (1999). When love is not a journey: What metaphors mean. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(12), 1541–1558. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(99)00003-x
Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M., S., Manfredi, D., (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(1), 50-67. https://doi.org/10.1037/e537272012-417
Glucksberg, S., Newsome, M., R., Goldvarg, Y., (2001). Inhibition of the literal: Filtering metaphor-irrelevant information during metaphor comprehension. Metaphor & Symbol. 16(3), 277-293. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678898
Honeck, R., P., Kibler, C., T., Firment, M., J., (1987). Figurative language and psychological views of categorization: Two ships in the night? In: Haskell, R., E., (Ed.), Cognition and Symbolic Structures: The Psychology of Metaphoric Transformation (pp. 103-120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Jones, L., L., Estes, Z., (2005). Metaphor comprehension as attributive categorization. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(1), 110-124. https://doi.org/10.1037/e537052012-119
Jones, L., L., Estes, Z., (2006). Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(1), 18-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.02.004
Keysar, B., (1994). Discourse context effects: Metaphorical and literal interpretations. Discourse Processes, 18(3), 247-269. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539409544895
Khatin-Zadeh, O., Eskandari, Z., Banaruee, H., Marmolejo-Ramos, F., (2019). Abstract metaphorical classes: A perspective from distributed models of conceptual representations. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 50(2), 108–113.
Khatin-Zadeh, O., Khoshsima, H., Yarahmadzehi, N., (2018). Suppression from the perspective of distributed models of conceptual representation. Activitas Nervosa Superior, 60, 90–94. https://doi.org/10.14704/nq.2019.17.1.1919
Khatin-Zadeh, O., Vahdat, S., (2015). Abstract and concreto representation in structure-mapping and class-inclusion. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 2(2), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.2.2.07kha
Kintsch, W., (2000). Metaphor comprehension: A computational theory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(2), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03212981
Lakoff, G., Johnson, M., (2003). Metaphors we Live by. London: University of Chicago Press.
Louwerse, M., M., Jeuniaux, P., (2010). The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing. Cognition, 114(1), 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.09.002
Masson, M., (1995). A distributed memory model of semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.1.3
McRae, K., Cree, G., S., (2002). Factors underlying category-specific semantic deficits. In: Forde, E., M., E., Humphreys, G. Category specificity in mind and brain. Psychology Press, East Sussex, 211–50.
McRae, K., Cree, G., S., Westmacott, R., de Sa, V., R., (1999). Further evidence for feature correlations in semantic memory. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53(4), 360–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087323
McRae, K., de Sa, V., R., Seidenberg, M., S., (1997). On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(2), 99–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.2.99
Moss, H., E., Tyler, L., K., Taylor, K., I., (2007). Conceptual Structure. In: Gaskell, G., editor. Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 217- -234, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Onifer, W., Swinney, D., A., (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory and Cognition, 9(3), 225-236. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196957
Ortony, A., (1979). Metaphor, language, and thought. In: Ortony, A., (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 1-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139173865.003
Schwanenflugel, P., J., Akin, C., Luh, W., M., (1992). Context availability and the recall of abstract and concrete words. Memory & Cognition, 20(1), 96–104. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03208259
Schwanenflugel, P., J., Harnishfeger, K., K., Stowe, R., W., (1988). Context availability and lexical decisions for abstract and concreto words. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(5), 499–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(88)90022-8
Taylor, K., I., Devereux, B., J., Tyler, L., K., (2011). Conceptual structure: Towards an integrated neuro-cognitive account. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(9), 1368–1401. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.568227
Thibodeau, P., H., Durgin, F., H., (2011). Metaphor aptness and conventionality: A processing fluency account. Metaphor and Symbol, 26(3), 206–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.583196
Trick, L., Katz, A., N., (1986). The domain interaction approach to metaphor processing: Relating individual differences and metaphor characteristics. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 1(3), 185–213. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0103_3
Tyler, L., K., Moss, H., E., (2001). Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(6), 244–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01651-x
Tyler, L., K., Moss, H., E., Durrant-Peatfield, M., R., Levy, J., P., (2000). Conceptual structure and the structure of concepts: A distributed account of category-specific deficits. Brain and Language, 75(2), 195–231.
Utsumi, A., (2005). The role of feature emergence in metaphor appreciation. Metaphor and Symbol, 20(3), 151–172. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2003_1
Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D., Lewis, W., Garrett, M., (2004). Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 48(4), 422-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2003.09.001
Xu, X., (2010). Interpreting metaphorical statements. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6),1622–1636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.11.005
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Omid Khatin-Zadeh
1
Zahra Eskandari
2

  1. School of Foreign Languages, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China
  2. Chabahar Maritime University
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

By conducting an examination of the mapping process in metaphor comprehension, this article suggests that a set of superficially different metaphors can be considered to be isomorphic to an underlying generic metaphor. In other words, a set of seemingly different metaphors with different domains can be categorized under a single generic metaphor. The generic metaphor is in the general form of X is in some kind of semantic relationship with Y. When this generic metaphor is realized in specific-level forms, a number of metaphors are produced which are isomorphic to each other, although their domains could be completely different in appearance. In other words, there is a deep homogeneity among a set of concretely different metaphors. A generic metaphor can be seen as a semantic frame for all specific metaphors that are isomorphic to it. Since base and target domains of a given metaphor can be very different in terms of concrete features, the mapping of the base into the target must be mediated by the domain of its underlying generic metaphor.
Go to article

Bibliography

Aziz-Zadeh, L., & Damasio, A. (2008). Embodied semantics for actions: Findings from functional brain imaging. Journal of Physiology, 102(1-3), 35–39.
Barsalou, L. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.
Binder, J. R., & Desai, R. H. (2011). The neurobiology of semantic memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(11), 527–536.
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133-–187.
Fischer, M.H., & Zwaan, R.A. (2008). Embodied language: a review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(6), 825–850. doi: 10.1080/17470210701623605.
Forbus, K. D., Gentner, D., & Law, K. (1994). MAC/FAC: A model of similarity-based retrieval. Cognitive Science, 19(2), 141–205.
Galinsky, A. D., & Glucksberg, S. (2001). Inhibition of the literal: Metaphors and idioms as judgmental primes. Social Cognition, 18(1), 35–54.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170.
Gernsbacher, M. A., Keysar, B., & Robertson, R. R. (1995). The role of suppression in metaphor interpretation. Paper presented at 36th annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Los Angeles.
Gibbs, R., Gould, J., & Andric, M. (2006). Imagining metaphorical actions: Embodied simulations make the impossible plausible. Imagination, Cognition, & Personality, 25(3), 221–238.
Gibbs, R. (2006). Embodiment and Cognitive Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H, L. (2012). Interpreting Figurative Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(3), 183–206.
Glucksberg, S., Newsome, M. R., & Goldvarg, Y. (2001). Inhibition of the literal: Filtering metaphor-irrelevant information during metaphor comprehension. Metaphor & Symbol, 16(3-4), 277–293.
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., &, Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41(2), 301–307. doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00838-9.
Jamrozik, A., McQuire, M., Cardillo, E., & Chatterjee, A. (2016). Metaphor: Bridging embodiment to abstraction, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 1080–1089.
Khatin-Zadeh, O., & Khoshsima, H. (2021). Homo-schematic metaphors: A study of metaphor comprehension in three different priming conditions. Journal of Psycholinguist Research, 50(4), 923–948. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-020-09754-z
Khatin-Zadeh, O., Khoshsima, H., Yarahmadzehi, N., & Marmolejo- Ramos, F. (2019). The Impact of metaphorical prime on metaphor comprehension processes. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 39(3), 375–388.
Khatin Zadeh, O., Vahdat, S. (2015). Abstract and concrete representa-tions in structure-mapping and class-inclusion. Journal of Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 2(2), 349-360.
King, B. (1989). The Conceptual structure of emotional experience in Chinese. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.
Klatzky, R. Pellegrino, J. McCloskey, B., & Doherty, S. (1989). Can you squeeze a tomato? The role of motor representations in semant-ic sensibility judgments. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(1), 56–77.
Kövecses, Z. (1986). Metaphors of Anger, Pride, and Love: A Lexical Approach to the Study of Concepts. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1987). The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. In D. Holland and N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 195–221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. & Tumer, M. (1989). More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we Live by. London: University of Chicago Press.
Matsuki, K. (1995). Metaphors of anger in Japanese. In J. R. Taylor and R. MacLaury (Eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world (pp. 137–151). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Micholajczuk, A. (1998). The metonymic and metaphoric conceptualization of anger in Polish. In A. Athanasiadou and E. Tabakowska (Eds.), Speaking of emotions: Conceptualization and expression (pp. 153–191). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nie, Y., & Chen, R. (2008). WATER metaphors and metonymies in Chinese: A semantic network. Pragmatics & Cognition, 16(3), 492–516.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: The Mind-as-body Metaphor in Semantic Structure and Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, J., & Mbense, T. (1998). Red dogs and rotten mealies: How Zulus talk about anger. In A. Athanasiadou and E. Tabakowska (Eds.), Speaking of emotions: Conceptualization and expression (pp. 191– 226). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Turner, M. (1987). Death is the Mother of Beauty: Mind, Metaphor, Criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Turner, M. (1991). Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Watson, C.E., Cardillo, E.R., Ianni, G.R., & Chatterjee, A. (2013). Action concepts in the brain: an activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 1191–1205. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00401.
Wilson, N., & Gibbs, R. (2007). Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31(4), 721–731.
Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. (2011). Structure-mapping in metaphor comprehension, Cognitive Science, 35 (8), 1456–1488.
Yu, N. (1998). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Omid Khatin-Zadeh
1
Hassan Banaruee
2
Babak Yazdani-Fazlabadi
3

  1. School of Foreign Languages, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China
  2. University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
  3. University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more