Cultural and Cognitive Dimensions of Metaphor Aptness

Barcelona, A. (2000). On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 32–58). Mouton de Gruyter.

Blasko, D. G., & Connine, C. M. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 295-308.

Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (1999). Metaphor comprehension: From comparison to categorization. In M. Hahn & S. C. Stoness (Eds.), Proceedings of twenty-first annual conference of cognitive science society (pp. 90-95). NJ: LEA.

Bowdle, B., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112, 193–216.

Brdar, M., & Brdar Szabó, R. (2007). When Zidane is not simply Zidane, and Bill Gates is not just Bill Gates: Or, some thoughts on online construction of metaphtonymic meanings of proper names. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 125–142). John Benjamins.

Caramazza, A., Hillis, A. E., Rapp, B. C., & Romani, C. (1990). The multiple semantics hypothesis: Multiple confusions?. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 7, 161–189.

Carroll, D. (2008). Psychology of Language. Thompson Publications.

Chiappe, D. L., & Kennedy, J. M. (1999). Aptness predicts preference for metaphors or similes, as well as recall bias. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 85-105.

Chiappe, D. L., Kennedy, J. M., & Chiappe, P. (2003). Aptness is more important than comprehensibility in preference for metaphors and similes. Poetics, 31, 51-68.

Eskandari, Z., Khoshsima, H., & Safaie-Qalati., M. (2020). Cross-cultural variations of metaphor aptness and their implications in foreign language teaching [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Chabahar Maritime University.

Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170.

Gibbs, R.W. (1994). Figurative thought and figurative language. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 411-446). Academic Press.

Grady, J. (1997a). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of California at Berkeley.

Grady, J. (1997b). Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 267–290.

Grady, J., & Johnson, C. (2002). Converging evidence for the notions of subscene and primary scene. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 533–554). Mouton de Gruyter.

Jones, L.  L., & Estes, Z. (2005). Metaphor comprehension as attributive categorization. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 110-124.

Jones, L. L., & Estes, Z. (2006). Roosters, robins, and alarm clocks: Aptness and conventionality in metaphor comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 50-67.

Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge University Press.

Kövecses, Z. (2013). The metaphor-metonymy relationship: Correlation metaphors are based on metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol, 28, 75–88.

Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(7), 37–77.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. Basic Books.

Lakoff, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1987). The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 195–221). Cambridge University Press.

Mashhady, H., Salarvand, H., & Fallah, N. (2014). A comparative and contrastive study on the meaning extension of color terms in Persian and English. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 6(1), 117-156.

Masson M. (1995). A distributed memory model of semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(1), 3–23.

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.

Moss, H. E., Tyler, L. K., & Taylor, K. I. (2007). Conceptual structure. In G. Gaskell (Ed.), Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 217-234). Oxford University Press.

Ortony, A. (1979). Metaphor, language, and thought. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 1-19). Cambridge University Press.

Radden, G. (2002). How metonymic are metaphors?. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 407–433). Mouton de Gruyter.

Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In U.-K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). John Benjamins.

Shabani, M., Malmir, A., & Salehizadeh, S. (2019). A contrastive analysis of Persian and English compliment, request, and invitation patterns within the semantic metalanguage framework. Journal of Language and Translation, 9(4), 17­­-34.

Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: The mind-as-body metaphor in semantic structure and semantic change. Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, J. (1989). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Clarendon Press.

Taylor, K. I., Devereux, B. J., & Tyler, L. K. (2011). Conceptual structure: Towards an integrated neurocognitive account. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(9), 1368-1401.

Turner, M. (1991). Reading minds: The study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton University Press.

Tyler, L. K., Durrant-Peatfield, M. R., Levy, J. P., Voice, J. K., & Moss, H. E. (1996). Distinctiveness and correlations in the structure of categories: Behavioral data and a connectionist model. Brain and Language, 55, 89–91.

Tyler, L. K., & Moss, H. E. (2001). Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 244–252.

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, 195–231.

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), 422-488.