Theory Question from a Neophyte

[Rene Dirven]

Dear all,
This is not a direct answer to your question, but indirectly it may open up
a major inroad into the problem area.
It is an item from METBIB, an electronic bibliography of metaphor and
metonymy, to go online from Benjamins, Amsterdam in early 2005.
Good luck for your enterprise,
Rene Dirven

Seitz, Jay A. 1998. Nonverbal metaphor: A review of theories and evidence.
Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs 124: 95-119.
Abstract
Traditional approaches to metaphor--the received view--have viewed metaphor
as largely a property of language behavior. As a result, theories of
metaphoric processes have been overly parochial evidencing an inability to
explain various phenomena that may share similar underlying processes. Three
accounts of metaphor are reviewed: The language view, the synesthetic view,
and the cognitive view. In support of the cognitive or symbol systems
approach various lines of evidence are offered: Prelinguistic evidence
including studies of metaphor-in-action and physiognomic perception as well
as evolutionary considerations; studies of children's comprehension and use
of spatial, gestural, and pictorial metaphor; and adult studies of gestural
representation and evidence from injury to the brain. Various theories of
nonverbal metaphor are reviewed with special attention given to visual
metaphor including illustrations from art theorists and historians and
arguments from philosophers. Finally, the issue of visual metaphor is framed
within a more general theory of visual thinking;
(Jay Seitz) www.york.cuny.edu/~seitz/pubs.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Revels" <mark.revels at WKU.EDU>
To: <DISCOURS at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 2:44
Subject: Theory Question from a Neophyte


> Hello Linguists!
>
> I am a doctoral student studying the use of computer mediated
> communication in higher education. I am looking for an extant theory
> that rates the use of verbal communication in comparison to other
> forms. For example, has verbal communication been shown to be the most
> effective, efficient, etc.?
>
> Also, I would be interested in knowing about linguistic/communication
> theories that compare verbal communications to other forms,
> specifically in the context of learning.
>
> Any help in this area would be much appreciated!
>
> Mark
>