Details

Title

Toward a Shared Metaphoric Meaning in Children's Discourse: The Role of Argumentation

Journal title

Polish Psychological Bulletin

Yearbook

2009

Numer

No 4

Authors

Divisions of PAS

Nauki Humanistyczne i Społeczne

Publisher

Committee for Psychological Science PAS

Date

2009

Identifier

DOI: 10.2478/s10059-009-0014-2

Source

Polish Psychological Bulletin; 2009; No 4

References

Bakhtin M. (1994, 1926), The Bakhtin reader, 161. ; Białecka-Pikul M. (2003), Metaphors in preschool child thinking about the mind, Psychology of Language and Communication, 7, 2, 37. ; Bobryk J. (1992), Akty semiotyczne, ich wytwory i mechanizmy. ; Bokus B. (2008), Children's communication in space. The creation of peer interactions at the preschool age, Vestnik Permskogo Universiteta. Serija Filologija, 19, 3, 8. ; Bokus B. (2009), New ideas in studying and supporting the development of exceptional people. Essays in honor of Tadeusz Gałkowski, 64. ; Bokus B. (2009), Children's argumentation in sharing metaphoric meanings, null. ; Bokus B. (1998), Social structures of children's narrational activity, Psychology of Language and Comunication, 2, 1, 75. ; Bowdle B. (2005), The career of metaphor, Psychological Review, 112, 1, 193. ; Conway D. (1991), On the distinction between convergent and linked arguments, Informal Logic, 13, 3, 145. ; Dryll, E. M. (2006). The development of abilities of metaphor comprehension. Unpublished MA thesis prepared under the supervision of Barbara Bokus, Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw. ; Eco U. (2007), Wyspa dnia poprzedniego. ; F. van Eemeren (1996), Fundamentals of argumentationt theory. A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. ; End L. (1986), Knowledge and language, 327. ; Garstka, T. (1998). Dochodzenie do wspólnych znaczeń w dyskursie dziecięcym (na przykładzie procesu interpretacji wyrażeń metaforycznych w diadzie rówieśniczej [Reaching shared meanings in children's discourse (on the example of the process of interpreting metaphoric expressions in a peer dyad)]. Unpublished MA thesis prepared under the supervision of Barbara Bokus. Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw. ; Givón T. (2005), Context as other minds: The pragmatics of sociality, cognition and communication. ; Gluckberg S. (2008), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 67. ; Haman M. (2002), Pojęcia i ich rozwój: Percepcja, doświadczenie i naiwne teorie. ; Hermans H. (1999), The plural self. Multiplicity in everyday life, 107. ; Keil F. (1986), Conceptual domains and the acquisition of metaphor, Cognitive Development, 1, 73. ; Keil F. (1989), Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. ; Kelly M. (1987), Conceptual domains and the comprehension of metaphor, Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2, 33. ; Kubicka D. (2005), Myślenie metaforyczne i jego uwarunkowania u dzieci w wieku od 4 do 10 lat. [Metaphorical thinking and it's conditions in 4-10 year olds], Studia Psychologiczne, 43, 2, 59. ; Lakoff G. (1988), Metafory w naszym życiu. ; Mey J. (2008), Pragmatics. An introduction. ; Ninio A. (1996), Pragmatic development. ; Psathas G. (1968), Comment, American Psychologist, 23, 135. ; Quignard M. (2005), Argumentation in practice, 69. ; Shields M. (1978), Action, Gesture, and Symbol: The emergence of language, 529. ; Shields M. (1986), Knowledge and language, 517. ; Shugar G. (1995), Dyskurs dziecięcy. Rozwój w ramach struktur społecznych. ; A. Snoeck Henkemans (2003), Complex argumentation in a critical discussion, Argumentation, 17, 405. ; Steen G. (2007), Finding metaphor in grammar and usage (A methodological analysis of theory and research). ; (1982), Analyzing discourse. Text and talk. ; Tendahl M. (2008), Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory, Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 11, 1823. ; Tokarz M. (2006), Argumentacja, perswazja, manipulacja. ; Tomasello M. (1999), The cultural origins of human cognition. ; Verbrugge R. (1979), New directions for child development: Fact, fiction, and fantasy in childhood, 6, 77. ; Walton D. (1989), Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. ; (1979), New directions for child development: Fact, fiction, and fantasy in childhood, 6. ; Winner E. (1988), The point of words: Children's understanding of metaphor and irony. ; Winner E. (1976), The development of metaphoric understanding, Developmental Psychology, 12, 4, 289.

Aims and scope

Polish Psychological Bulletin (founded in 1970) is an official journal of Polish Academy of Sciences, Committee for Psychological Science.The journal publish a variety of papers, including empirical reports of experiments, surveys and field studies, theoretical articles, controversies and analytic papers on important psychological topics. Relevance for an international readership is our prominent goal, Polish Psychological Bulletin does not publish clinical case studies, or technical articles. Submissions from all domains of psychology are encouraged, especially those that address new developments and pursue innovative approaches.

Periodically, the journal will announce a call for papers for special issues. The journal will also entertain unsolicited proposals for special issues that fit the stated scope of the Polish Psychiological Bulletin (please contact the journal’s Editor-in-Chief with a detailed description of your proposal).

All published research articles in this journal have undergone rigorous review, based on initial editor screening and anonymous evaluation of content and merit by independent expert reviewers.

For information on specific requirements, please see the Author Guidelines.

Abstracting & Indexing


Abstracting and Indexing Information


• DESY Publication Database

• Directory of Open Access Journal (DOAJ)

• Current Contents: Social & Behavioral Sciences

• Dimensions

• EBSCO

• ERIH Plus

• Google Scholar

• Index Copernicus

• ProQuest

• PsychArchives

• Science Open

• SCOPUS (Elsevier)

• Sherpa/RoMEO

Publication Ethics Policy

Peer Review and Ethics

Polish Psychological Bulletin is committed to peer-review integrity and upholding the highest standards of review.
Once your paper has been assessed for suitability by the editor, it will then be double blind peer reviewed by independent, anonymous authorities in the field.
Our guidance on publishing ethics is in accrdance with the COPE standards (see: https://publicationethics.org).
×