29.3426, Review: Cognitive Science; Linguistic Theories; Pragmatics; Psycholinguistics: Athanasiadou (2017)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-29-3426. Thu Sep 06 2018. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 29.3426, Review: Cognitive Science; Linguistic Theories; Pragmatics; Psycholinguistics: Athanasiadou (2017)

Moderator: linguist at linguistlist.org (Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté)
Homepage: https://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Jeremy Coburn <jecoburn at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2018 22:16:04
From: Nina Julich [nina_julich at yahoo.de]
Subject: Studies in Figurative Thought and Language

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36366937


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/28/28-2591.html

EDITOR: Angeliki  Athanasiadou
TITLE: Studies in Figurative Thought and Language
SERIES TITLE: Human Cognitive Processing 56
PUBLISHER: John Benjamins
YEAR: 2017

REVIEWER: Nina Julich, Universität Leipzig

Athanasiadou, Angeliki (ed.) (2017). Studies in Figurative Thought and
Language. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins (Human Cognitive Processing
56), pp. 327

SUMMARY

The volume consists of three parts: figuration in grammar, figuration and the
lexicon, and figuration from a cultural-anthropological perspective. It is
inspired by the 1st international symposium on “Figurative Thought and
Language“ held in Thessaloniki, Greece, in 2014.

In the following paragraphs each individual contribution will be reviewed.
Subsequently, the volume will be briefly evaluated.

In the introduction to the volume (pp. 1-14), editor Angeliki Athanasiadou
discusses recent trends in the study of figuration within the framework of
Cognitive Linguistics, such as the interaction between figurative tropes and
constructions. She provides a brief overview of the volume’s contributions and
draws attention to areas of future research that are tackled by the
contributions, such as the universality vs. specificity of figuration across
cultures and languages, linguistic constraints on the interpretation and
verbalisation of figures of thought as well as the need for a more thorough
inclusion of a cognitive pragmatic-approach to the study of figurative
meaning.

The chapters in Part I “Figuration and Grammar“ all stress the importance of
metaphor and metonymy in the meaning creation and extension of grammatical
constructions. The focus is primarily on metonymy, which is assumed to play a
fundamental role in grammar. The workings of metaphor on grammar are usually
based on pre-existing metonymies (cf. Athanasiadou p. 152). Apart from the
influence of figurative tropes on the shape of grammar, the reverse influence,
in particular that of grammatical systems on metonymic instantiations, is also
considered (Brdar & Brdar-Szabó’s contribution) rendering Part I a coherent
account of current trends in the interaction of metonymy and metaphor in
grammar.

In “Exploiting wh-questions for expressive purposes” (pp. 17-40), Klaus-Uwe
Panther and Linda L. Thornburg analyse the Wh-x do you think + complement
clause construction. They are particularly interested in how the
conventionalised expressive target sense of disapproval, e.g. What do you
think you are doing?, relates to the neutral sense of a question, e.g. What do
you think I should do? Based on examples retrieved from the COCA corpus, the
authors discuss the neutral and the expressive usages of sub-constructions
depending on the concrete instantiation of the wh- interrogative. The authors
show that the expressive sense is derived from the neutral sense via a number
of pragmatic inferences (Table 1, p. 30), which are potentially motivated by
high-level metonymies such as Cause for Effect (instantiated by Action for
Evaluation of Action) and Concept for Opposite Concept (instantiated by
Rational Thinking for Irrational Thinking).

In “Construing and constructing hyperbole” (pp. 41-73), Sandra Peña and
Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza investigate the cognitive processes involved in
the production and comprehension of hyperbole. The authors argue that
hyperbole is based on a conceptual mapping between a hypothetical source
scenario that is mapped onto a real-world scenario (Fig. 1, p. 52). The
example they discuss is “This suitcase weighs a ton”. In the source scenario,
a concept (here: weight) is scaled up beyond proportion via the cognitive
operation of ‘strengthening’ to reflect the speaker’s emotional reaction of
the real-word situation (here: frustration). Hyperboles are either
inferential, as in “My sister lives at the other end of the world,” or
constructional, as in “It’s been ages since we all sat down together”. The
construction “It’s been ages since XP” is conventionally associated with a
hyperbolic meaning, whereas in the first example the hyperbolic meaning is not
constructionally cued and has to be inferred from the context. The authors
focus on two hyperbolic constructions (X is not Y but Z and ‘God-related’
constructions) discussing different types of instantiations and their
entrenched meaning implications based on corpus attestations. In the final
section, the authors suggest possible constraints on the production and
comprehension of hyperbole, especially the Principle of Relevance.

Annalisa Baicchi investigates how indirect meaning is constructed in
interrogative illocutions such as Can I X? or May I X? in “How to do things
with metonymy in discourse” (pp. 75-104). Based on work by Thornburg and
Panther (1997), mentioning one part of the illocutionary scenario affords
access to the whole scenario, as in asking about the hearer’s ability to
perform an action for requesting, which underlies an expression like “Can you
bring me my coffee? ” This process gives rise to illocutionary constructions,
i.e. entrenched form-function parings (p. 82). In a qualitative analysis of 15
interrogative illocutionary constructions based on corpus attestations from
the BNC, COCA, and WebCorp, Baicchi complements Thornburg and Panther’s
analysis by including socio-cultural variables such as politeness,
forcefulness, social power or optionality to explain how specific indirect
meanings arise metonymically in communication. In the final part, Baicchi
argues that her analysis of illocutionary constructions in terms of metonymies
is compatible with Slobin’s Thinking-for-Speaking hypothesis (1996) and
suggests extending his framework by complementing linguistic constraints posed
on thinking for speaking by socio-cultural constraints of the specific
language community.

Evgenia Vassilaki examines the “Cognitive motivation in the linguistic
realisation of requests in Modern Greek“ (pp. 105-124). Vassilaki’s study is
particularly interesting because it looks at Modern Greek, which in contrast
to English is an inflectional language. Vassilaki claims that apart form
inferential operations, formal inflectional properties motivate entrenched
request interpretations. The feature of optionality referring to the degree to
which the addressee “is allowed the option of not performing the intended
action” (Leech 1983: 109) is taken to be the most central conceptual element
of the request scenario. The author demonstrates how optionality is encoded
grammatically in three entrenched patterns of Modern Greek requests:
imperatives, modal interrogatives and present tense interrogatives, the latter
being language-specific to Modern Greek. In a qualitative analysis of corpus
attestations, Vassilaki analyses these constructions with respect to their
temporal, modal and sentential grounding and argues that degree of optionality
is metaphorically reflected by the distance between the grounding of the
proposition (i.e. tense and mood and sentence type of the proposition) and the
here-and-now of the speech event: the more immediate the construction, the
lower the optionality; the more distal the construction, the higher the
optionality.

In “How metonymy and grammar interact. Some effects and constraints in a
cross-linguistic perspective” (pp. 125-149), Mario Brdar and Rita Brdar-Szabó
acknowledge the important impact of metonymy on grammar; however, they are
interested in whether metonymy can also be constrained by grammar. By
analysing corpus attestations of various languages, they show that whether a
certain metonymy is available in a given language depends on conditions of the
respective grammatical system. In Australian English, embellished clippings,
i.e. clippings extended by diminutive or hypocoristic suffixation like “ambo”
for either ‘ambulance station’ or ‘ambulance driver,’ the possibility of
clipping whole compounds or phrases as well as the possibility for conversion
/ zero-derivation allow for metonymic extensions that are not possible in
Hungarian, Croatian or German due to the fairly strict gender system of the
latter three languages. The authors further discuss the local genitive in
constructions like “We’ll meet at Joe’s,” pointing to a difference in
productivity between English and German that is based on the strong syncretism
of -s as a plural as well as a genitive marker in English, whereas in German
plural -s is rather infrequent compared to competing plural markers.

Like the previous contributions, the volume’s editor Angeliki Athanasiadou in
“If-clauses and their figurative basis” (pp. 151-175) is interested in the
role of figurative language in shaping the form and meaning of grammatical
constructions. She focuses on two subtypes of conditionals: Course of Events
Conditionals (CECs) or ‘factual conditionals’ as in “If there is a drought
like this year, the eggs remain dormant,” and Hypothetical Conditionals (HCs)
as in “If the weather is fine, we’ll go for a swim”. The analysis is based on
data drawn from previous publications (Athanasiadou & Dirven 1996, Dirven &
Athanasiadou 2005) and online dictionaries. For Hypothetical Conditionals,
Athanasiadou claims that these are basically hypothetical statements which due
to high-level metonymies such as condition for cause and consequence for
result come to be understood as predicative, precondition or supposition
hypothetical conditionals. These target meanings are highly conventionalised,
which is reflected by the use of grammaticalised subordinators other than “if”
(e.g. for the precondition subtype: “The clove-pink needs no special
cultivation, provided it has well drained soil,” p. 162). CECs, in turn, are
claimed to be motivated by the conceptual metaphor HYPOTHETICALITY IS
POTENTIAL REALITY which speakers deliberately (Steen 2008) exploit to appear
less opposing towards the addressee.

In the first chapter of Part II, Ad Foolen explores the concept of “The hand
in figurative thought and language” (pp. 179-198). His analysis is based on
conventional expressions from languages all over the world but he mainly
focuses on Dutch. Foolen briefly considers cases in which the concept of hand
itself is expressed figuratively and serves as target domain, e.g. in some
languages the word for “hand” actually refers to the whole arm, including hand
and fingers. The main part of his chapter discusses hand as a source domain,
which may refer to nine broad target domains: activity / inactivity, control,
possession, positive human relations, negative human relations, certainty,
evidentiality, emotions, time. He also presents a detailed analysis of the
concept of the hand for the system of numerals (both in speech and writing)
for various languages. Figurative uses of the hand also reflect associations
with handedness: expressions involving the right hand tend to be positive
whereas those involving the left hand tend to be negative. Drawing on previous
studies, Foolen highlights that the concept of the hand is highly frequent
both as a single figurative lexeme as well as part of fixed figurative
expressions emphasising the special importance of the hand to human history
and cognition. Foolen concludes that the majority of figurative expressions
has a metonymic basis supporting the importance of embodiment to human
cognition and in particular the theory of enactive cognition (Stewart et al.
2010).

In “Shakespeare on the shelf, Blue Helmets on the move. Human-related
metonymic conceptualisation in English and Serbian” (pp. 199-229), Katarina
Rasulić explores human-related metonymies from a cross-linguistic perspective.
Rasulić analyses 900 examples in English and Serbian, which are drawn from 1)
the cognitive linguistics literature on metonymy, 2) electronic corpora, and
3) selected informal sources like personal conversations and internet forums
or chats. The data is analysed qualitatively. First, metonymies are classified
with respect to whether humans function as the source or the target of the
mapping. Second, conceptual metonymic mappings are assigned to the examples
and together with their particular lexico-grammatical features are compared
between English and Serbian. Rasulić finds that human-related metonymies, e.g.
producer for produced or piece of clothing/uniform for person, are shared
between English and Serbian. Metonymies with humans as target occur less
frequently and are more constrained whereas metonymies with humans as source
are more frequent and can refer to virtually any kind of target. There are
some differences in the realisation of the metonymies, which pertain to
different collocational patterns and culture-specific motivations of the
metonym as well as grammatical aspects, which are based on the fact that
Serbian in contrast to English is an inflectional language.

In “Metaphor, conceptual archetypes and subjectification. The case of
completion is up and the polysemy of shàng in Chinese” (pp. 231-249), Wei-lun
Lu analysis the polysemy of the Chinese particle “shàng” which corresponds to
English “up”. Previous work has shown that in English the particle, apart from
expressing vertical elevation, can function to express the end of a process as
in “drink up” or “finish up” reflecting the conceptual metaphor completion is
up (Lakoff & Johnson 2003: 21, Hampe 2000: 91, Kövecses 2001: 105). It is the
aim of Lu’s contribution to analyse the semantic extensions of Chinese “shàng”
in order to better understand the motivation and workings of this conceptual
metaphor. For the study, Lu extracted 300 instances of the string “V-shàng”
from the Sinica Corpus of Modern Chinese. The semantics of V-shàng were
examined applying the Principled Polysemy framework, which assumes that an
expression’s grammatical profile influences its semantics (Tyler & Evans 2001,
2003, Evans 2004). Based on this analysis, Lu identifies four senses of
“shàng” – ‘vertically higher’, ‘vertically attained’, ‘attached’ and
‘completive’ – and sketches out their image-schematic representations. In the
discussion, Lu draws on the notions of semantic attenuation and
subjectification (Langacker 1999, 2006) as well as conceptual archetypes
(Langacker 2006) to explain the semantic route of “shàng” from ‘vertically
higher / attained’ to ‘completive’.

In Part III of the volume, “Figuration from a cultural-anthropological and
psycholinguistic perspective,” the scope of the study of figuration is
extended to psycholinguistic endeavours and to the impact of culture.

In “Metaphor and metonymy as fanciful ‘asymmetry’ builders” (pp. 253-271),
Ioannis Veloudis emphasises the fundamental role of metaphor and metonymy to
human cognition by bringing together assumptions from neuroscience, ethology,
anthropology, art, philosophy and linguistics. Part of his argument consists
of relating the ‘peak shift effect’ (Ramachandran 2011) to an expressive
construction for negation in Greek. The ‘peak shift effect’ describes the
phenomenon that exaggerated stimuli can function to be much more persuasive
and appealing than the original. He gives examples from sea gull and rat
behaviour and relates the same principle to the interpretation of the Greek
expression “LEPI!,” which literally translates as ‘scale (of a fish)!’ but is
interpreted as “We did not even catch a fish” via a mix of metonymic and
metaphoric mappings. Furthermore, Veloudis discusses the role of metaphor and
metonymy in prehistoric handprints found in caves. He relates metaphor and
metonymy to dichotomies such as Saussure’s associative and syntagmatic
relationship and Peirce’s icon and index among others. Veloudis concludes by
arguing that metaphor and metonymy are playful and innovative ways of seeing
something new (or from a new perspective) against the background of something
known.

In “Pragmatic effects in blended figures. The case of metaphtonymy” (pp.
273-294), Herbert L. Colston investigates pragmatic effects of figurative
tropes in expressions when tropes are mixed. Colston’s considerations are
exploratory drawing on psycholinguistic evidence from previous research. His
analysis starts out by discussing pragmatic effects of figurative tropes in
isolation focusing on how metaphor, synecdoche, and verbal irony may achieve a
derisive effect. Synecdoche, for example, achieves derision via a
part-for-whole reference violating the exceptionality of human beings by
ignoring a person’s entirety (p. 281). Colston then discusses possible
pragmatic effects for combinations of figurative tropes. Based on findings in
Colston & Gibbs (2002), Colston argues that metaphor and irony interfere with
each other, compromising possible pragmatic effects. Especially when it comes
to expressing derision, metaphor and irony seem to cancel each other. Verbal
irony and synecdoche, on the other hand, are assumed to enhance each others’
pragmatics effects as suggested by work on hyperbole and irony (Colston &
Keller 1998). Metaphor and synecdoche (and also metonymy more generally) are
particularly “blendable” (p. 288) because they overlap in the way they
function. In terms of pragmatic effects, however, it is often impossible to
identify which effect can be contributed to which trope. In conclusion,
Colston identifies questions for further research.

In “The psychological reality of spatio-temporal metaphors” (pp. 295-321),
Panos Athanasopoulos, Steven Samuel and Emanuel Bylund review empirical
evidence put forward for the psychological reality of the time is space
conceptual metaphor. The authors also review previous findings with respect to
linguistic relativity and the impact of cultural conventions on patterns of
mental representations of time. Athanasopoulos et al. first discuss metaphors
in which time is construed as deictic motion through space and present a
detailed review of experiments conducted by Boroditsky (2000), which is
complemented by more recent findings suggesting that time may also be
construed by non-deictic motion (Núñez et al. 2006) and relies on
cross-cultural differences with regard to temporal frames of reference
(Rothe-Wulf et al. 2014). As a second topic, the authors discuss orientational
metaphors for time showing, for example, that for the Aymara as well as in
co-speech gestures in Darija (Morocco, De la Fuente et al. 2014) the future is
‘behind’ and the past ‘in front’ (Núñez & Sweetser 2006). The next section
discusses how spatial concepts influence the perception of temporal duration
reviewing work by Casasanto (2005, 2008, 2010) and Alards-Tomalin et al.
(2014). The authors conclude that the empirical findings reviewed indeed
indicate that time is construed and understood in terms of space; however,
work by Sinha et al. (2011) indicates that the conceptualisation of time
instead of being universal and pre-linguistic might as well be based on
cultural conventions as well as cultural practices for representations of time
(e.g. clocks, calendars).

EVALUATION

The volume presents state-of-the-art research into the field of figuration.
The individual contributions do not only focus on metaphor but particularly
highlight understudied tropes such as metonymy or hyperbole and focus on their
importance for the construction of semantic, grammatical and pragmatic
meaning.

The value of the volume’s contributions lies particularly in the focus on
pragmatic phenomena. The contributions of the first part highlight the role of
figuration and particularly metonymy for the construction of meaning in
utterances in language in context via pragmatic inference. The authors stress
that Cognitive Linguistic research needs to focus more on inferential
phenomena and how they can be explained by cognitive principles such as
metaphor or metonymy. A second relevant topic extensively discussed in the
volume is the relation between figurative mechanisms and grammar. The
contributors show how figuration may license or constrain grammatical
functions as well as how figuration can be constrained by the grammatical
system of a particular language. In relation to that, the volume highlights
the importance of cross-linguistic findings to put theoretical considerations
to the test.

The study of figuration, especially of relating figuration in language to
processes in thought, poses difficulties from a methodological point of view:
How can we reliably and systematically identify as well as classify figurative
processes in language? In the majority of contributions, assumptions are based
on attestations retrieved either from corpora, previous publications or from
real-life conversations (personal or overheard). The sources for the data are
always made explicit. The analyses are all qualitative in nature. Some of the
examples, which serve as the basis for theoretical assumptions, present cases
of “cherry-picking” (Johansson Falck 2016: 30) i.e. rather than analysing a
fixed set of data exhaustively and systematically, examples that are
particularly interesting or that serve to support a certain theory are singled
out and there is no indication of whether the example presents a typical case
in question or not. This kind of approach is relevant to devise, refine or
refute a theory; however, an adequate description of figuration in thought and
language should also include information on how frequently speakers use a
figurative expression as opposed to an alternative non-figurative expression.
More quantitative approaches would also allow for significance testing of the
influence of a particular variable on meaning construction via figurative
thought. The volume’s contributions present a valuable source of hypotheses
that can be put to the empirical test for corpus linguistics, acceptability
judgements tasks or psycholinguistic experiments.

A further methodological issue relates to how we can draw conclusions about
mental representations from the analysis of linguistic evidence alone. Some of
the contributions in part III review psychological evidence; however, the main
body of studies is based on linguistic analyses. Yet, Lu (pp. 231-249) shows
that findings about conceptual structure might be inferred from a set of
linguistic data that is clearly restricted in its semantic and grammatical
scope arguing that the scope of semantic research needs to be set within the
same grammatical constructions (p. 244). Thus, Lu stresses the “usefulness of
a corpus-based and polysemy-informed approach to conceptual metaphor” (p.
247).

All in all, the volume presents a highly coherent set of contributions, which
are of great interest to scholars particularly working within the field of
Cognitive Linguistics. The volume is well edited and has a name and subject
index at the end, which facilitates searching for and cross-checking
individual topics.

REFERENCES

Athanasiadou, A. & R. Dirven. 1996. Typology of if-clauses. In E.H. Cased
(ed.), Cognitive linguists in the Redwoods: The expansion fo a new paradigm in
linguistics, 609-654. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Dirven, R. & A. Athanasiadou. 2005. If and is near synonyms. In A.J. Schuth,
K. Horner & J.J. Weber (eds.), Life in language, 97-120. Trier:
Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.

Leech, G. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London & New York: Longman.

Steen, G. 2008. The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model
for metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 23(4). 213-241. 

Stewart, J., O. Gapenne, E.A. Di Paolo (eds.). 2010. Enaction: Toward a new
paradigm for cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 2003. Metaphor we live by (2nd ed.). Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.

Hampe, B. 2000. Facing up to the meaning of ‘face up to’: A cognitive
semantic-pragmatic analysis of an English verb-particle construction. In A.
Foolen & F. van der Leeck (eds.), Constructions in cognitive linguistics:
Selected papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference,
Amsterdam 1997, 81-102. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Kövecses, Z. 2001. Learning idioms in an FLT context. In M. Pütz, S. Niemeier
& R. Dirven (eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics II: Language pedagogy,
87-115. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Tyler, A. & V. Evans. 2001. Reconsidering prepositional networks: The case of
over. Language 77. 724-65.

Tyler, A. & V. Evans. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial
scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Evans, V. 2004. The structure of time: Language, meaning and temporal
cognition. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Langacker, R.W. 1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Langacker, R.W. 2006. Subjectification, grammaticalization and conceptual
archetypes. In A. Athanasiadou, C. Canakis & B. Cornillie (eds.),
Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity, 17-40. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Ramachandran, V.S. 2011. The tell-tale brain: Unlocking the mystery of human
nature. London: William Heinemann.

Colston, H.L. & R.W. Gibbs. 2002. Are irony and metaphor understood
differently? Metaphor and Smybol 17(1). 57-80

Colston, H.L. & S.B. Keller. 1998. You’ll never believe this: Irony and
hyperbole in expressing surprise. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 27(4).
499-513.

Boroditsky, L. 2000. Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through
spatial metaphors. Cognition 75(1). 1-28

Núñez, R.E., B.A. Motz & U. Teuscher. 2006. Time after time. The psychological
reality of the ego- and time-reference-point distinction in metaphorical
construals of time. Metaphor and Symbol 21(3). 133-146.

Rothe-Wulf A., S. Beller & A. Bender. 2014. Temporal frames of reference in
three Germanic languages: Individual consistency, interindividual consensus,
and cross-linguistic variability. The Quarterly Journal of Eyperimental
Psychology. 1-23.

De la Fuente, J., J. Santiago, A. Roman, C. Dumitrache & D. Casasanto. 2014.
When you think about it, your past is in front of you: How cultures shape
spatial conceptions of time. Psychological Science 25(9). 1682-1690

Núñez, R.E. & E. Sweetser. 2006. With the future behind them: Convergent
evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of
spatial construals of time. Cognitive Science 30(3). 401-450.

Casasanto, D. 2005. Perceptual foundations of abstract thought. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Casasanto, D. 2008. Who’s afraid of the big bad Whorf? Crosslinguistic
differences in temporal language and thought. Language Learning 58(s1). 63-67.

Casasanto, D. 2010. Space for thinking. In V. Evans & P. Chilton (eds.),
Language, Cognition and Space: The State of the Art and New Directions,
453-478. London: Equinox.

Alards-Tomalin, D., J.P. Leboe-McGowan, J.D.M. Shaw, L.C. Leboe-McGowan. 2014.
The effects of numerical magnitude, size, and color saturation on perceived
interval duration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition 40(2). 555-566.

Sinha, C., V.D.S. Sinha, J. Zinken & W. Sampaio. 2011. When time is not space:
the social and linguistic construction of time intervals and temporal event
relations in an Amazonian culture. Language and Cognition 3(1). 137-169.

Johansson Falck, M. 2016. What trajectors reveal about TIME metaphors.
Analysis of English and Swedish. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
21(1). 28-47.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Nina Julich is a PhD candidate at Leipzig University, Germany. Her research
interests include the study of conceptual phenomena in language particularly
conceptual metaphor and fictive motion, as well as metaphors for specific
target domains (particularly motion metaphors in music criticism).





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:

              The IU Foundation Crowd Funding site:
       https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list

               The LINGUIST List FundDrive Page:
            https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-29-3426	
----------------------------------------------------------