Cover not available
Part of
Exploring Discourse Strategies in Social and Cognitive Interaction: Multimodal and cross-linguistic perspectives
Edited by Manuela Romano and M. Dolores Porto
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 262] 2016
► pp. 1–17

Discourse, cognition and society

| University Autónoma de Madrid
| University of Alcalá
Published online: 31 March 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.262.01rom
References (79)
References
Barlow, Michael. 2000. “Usage, Blends, and Grammar.” In Usage-Based Models of Language, ed by Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer, 315–345. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Barlow, Michael and Suzanne Kemmer (eds). 2000. Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bednarek, Monika and James R. Martin (eds). 2010. New Discourse on Language: Functional Perspectives on Multimodality, Identity, and Affiliation. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Bedny, George, Karwowski Waldemar, and Marina Bedny. 2001. “The Principle of Unity of Cognition and Behavior: Implications of Activity Theory for the Study of Human Work.” International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics 5 (4): 401–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernárdez, Enrique. 1995. Teoría y Eepistemología del Texto. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
. 2008a. El Lenguaje como Cultura: Una Crítica del Discurso sobre el Lenguaje [Language as Culture: A Critical Approach to the Discourse of Language]. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.Google Scholar
. 2008b. “Collective Cognition and Individual Activity: Variation, Language and Culture.” In Body, Language and Mind. Vol. 2: Sociocultural Situatedness, ed. by Roslyn M. Frank, René Dirven, Tom Ziemke and Enrique Bernárdez, 137–166. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Algunas consideraciones contra el individualismo esencialista en las lingüísticas cognitivas [Some considerations against essentialist individualism in cognitive linguistics].” In La Lingüística como reto Epistemológico y como Acción Social [Language as an Epistemological Challenge and as Social Action], ed. by Montserrat Veyrat, and Enrique Serra, 1–10. Madrid: Arco.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1994. Raisons pratiques. Sur la théorie de l’action [Practical reason. On the Theory of Action]. Paris. Éditions de Seuil.Google Scholar
Brandt, Line and Per A. Brandt. 2005. “Making Sense of a Blend. A Cognitive-Semiotic Approach to Metaphor.” Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3: 216–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carter, Ronald. 2004. Language and Creativity. The Art of Common Talk. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carter, Ronald A. and Michael J. McCarthy. 2004. “Talking Creating: Interactional language, Creativity and Context.” Applied Linguistics 25 (1): 62–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Beaugrande, Robert. A. and Wolfgang U. Dressler. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguisitics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
De Beaugrande, Robert. 1996. “The Story of Discourse Analysis”. In Introduction to Discourse Analysis, ed. by Teun A. Van Dijk, 35–62. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick. J. 2009. “Relationship of Thinking and Human Pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics 41: 60–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Fasold, Ralph. 1990. The Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994/1985. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Forceville, Charles and Eduardo Urios-Aparisi (eds). 2009. Multimodal Metaphor. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forceville, Charles. 2010. “Why and How Study Metaphor, Metonymy, and other Tropes in Multimodal Discourse?” In Comunicação, Cognição e Media Vol. I, ed. by Augusto Soares da Silva, José C. Martins, Luísa Magalhães, and Miguel Gonçalves, 41–60. Braga: Aletheia/Associação Científica e Cultural, Faculdade de Filosofia, Universade Católica Portuguesa.Google Scholar
Frank, Roslyn M., René Dirven, Ton Ziemke and Enrique Bernárdez (eds.). 2008. Body, Language and Mind. Vol. 2: Sociocultural Situatedness. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Garrod, Simon and Martin J. Pickering. 2004. “Why is Conversation so Easy?” TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 8 (1): 8–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk and Stefan Grondelaers. 1995. “Looking back at Anger: Cultural traditions and metaphorical patterns.” In Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World, ed. by John R. Taylor and Robert E. MacLaury, 153‐179. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk, Gitte Kristiansen and Yves Peirsman (eds). 2010. Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghassemzadeh, Habibollah. 2005. “Vygotsky’s Mediational Psychology: A New Conceptualization of Culture, Signification and Metaphor.” Language Sciences 27 (3): 281–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond. 1994. The Poetics of the Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan and Kerstin Fischer (eds). 2010. Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gontier, Nathalie. 2009. “The Origin of the Social Approach in Language and Cognitive Research Exemplified by Studies in the Origin of Language.” In Language and Social Cognition. Expression of the Social Mind, ed by Hanna Pishwa, 25–46. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grady, Joseph E., Todd Oakley and Seana Coulson. 1999. “Blending and Metaphor.” In Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Gerard Steen and Raymond Gibbs, 101–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge (MA): Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltan. 2002. Metaphor: A practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther. 2010. Multimodality. A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, Gitte, Dirven, René and Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza (eds). 2006. Applications of Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations and Fields of Application. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, Gitte and René Dirven (eds). 2008. Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Moral Politics. How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol.1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1994. “Culture, Cognition, and Grammar.” In Language Contact and Language Conflict, ed. by Martin Pütz, 25–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. “Discourse in Cognitive Grammar.” Cognitive Linguisitics 12 (2): 143–188.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Jessica and Tom Ziemke. 2002. “Social Situatedness of Natural and Artificial Intelligence: Vigotsky and Beyond.” Adaptive Behaviour 11 (2): 79–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maybin, Janet and Joan Swann (eds). 2006. The Art of English. Everyday Creativity. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Menéndez, Salvio M. 2005. “¿Qué es una estrategia discursiva? [What is a discourse strategy?].” In Teorías Críticas de la Literatura y la Lingüística. Debates Actuales [Critical Theories of Literature and Linguistics. Current Debates], ed. by Susana Santos and Jorge Panesi. Buenos Aires: Facultad de Filosofía y Letras [CD-ROM].Google Scholar
Morales-López, Esperanza. 2011. “Hacia dónde va el análisis del discurso [Where is discourse analysis heading to?].” Revista Elctrónica de Estudios Filológicos 21. [URL] (April 22, 2015).Google Scholar
Müller, Ulrich and Jeremy I.M. Carpendale. 2001. “The Role of Social Interaction in Piaget’s Theory: Language for Social Cooperation and Social Cooperation for Language.” New Ideas in Psychology 18 (2–3): 139–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Musolff, Andreas and Joerg Zinken (eds). 2009. Metaphor and Discourse. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, Sigrid. 2004. Analyzing Multimodal Interaction: A Methodological Framework. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
O’Halloran, Kay L. 2004. Multimodal Discourse Analysis: Systemic Functional Perspectives. 
London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Palmer, Gary B. 1996. Towards a Theory of Cultural Linguistics. Austin: University of Texas.Google Scholar
Page, Ruth (ed). 2009. New Perspectives on Narrative and Multimodality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pennycook, Alastair. 2007. “The Rotation gets Thick. The Constraints get Thin’: Creativity, Recontextualization, and Difference.” Journal of Applied Linguistics 28 (4): 579–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pishwa, Hanna. 2009. Language and Social Cognition. Expression of the Social Mind. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Porto, M. Dolores and Manuela Romano. 2013. “Newspaper Metaphors: Re-using Metaphors for New Purposes.” Metaphor & Symbol 28 (1): 60–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pütz, Martin, Robinson, Justyna A. and Monika Reif (eds). 2014. Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Social and Cultural Variation in Cognition and Language Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohrer, Tim. 2006. “Three Dogmas of Embodiment: Cognitive Linguistics as a Cognitive Science.” In Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perpectives, ed. by Gitte Kristiansen, Michel Achard, René Dirven and Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza, 119–146. 
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2007. “The Body in Space: Dimensions of Embodiment.” In Body, Language and Mind, Vol 1: Embodiment, ed. by Tom Ziemke, Jordan Zlatev, and Roslyn M. Frank, 339–377. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Romano, Manuela. 2013. “Situated-Instant Metaphors: Creativity in 15M Slogans.” Metaphor and the Social World (Special Issue: Metaphorical Creativity across Modes) 3 (2): 241–260.Google Scholar
. 2015. “La protesta social como ‘laboratorio’ de creatividad metafórica [Social protest as a ‘laboratory’ of metaphorical creativity].” Discourso y Sociedad 9 (1–2): 41–65.Google Scholar
Sal-Paz, Julio C. and Silvia D. Maldonado. 2009. “Estrategias discursivas: un abordaje terminológico [Discourse strategies: A terminological approach].” Espéculo: Revista de Estudios Literarios 43: 1–16.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Semino, Elena. 2008. Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sharifian, Farzad. 2008. “Distributed, Emergent Cultural Cognition, Conceptualization and Language.” In Body, Language and Mind. Vol. 2: Sociocultural Situatedness. ed. by Roslyn M. Frank, René Dirven, Tom Ziemke, and Enrique Bernárdez, 109–136. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2011. Cultural Conceptualizations and Language: Theoretical Framework and Applications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Cultural Linguistcs.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture, ed. by Farzad Sharifian, 473–492. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sharifian, Farzad and Maryam Jamarani. 2013. Language and Intercultural Communication in the New Era. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smith, Eliot R. and Gün R. Semin. 2004. “Socially Situated Cognition: Cognition in its Social Context.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 36: 53–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speelman, Dirk, Stefan Grondelaers and Dirk Geeraerts. 2013. “Profile-Based Linguistic Uniformity as a Generic Method for Comparing Language Varieties.” Computers and the Humanities 37: 317–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol and Stefan Th. Gries (eds). 2007. Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sternberg, Robert J. 1999. Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. “The Relation of Grammar to Cognition.” In Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 165–205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A. (ed). 1985. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Vol. I: Disciplines of Discourse. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1993. Elite Discourse and Racism. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (ed). 1997. Discourse Studies. A Multidisciplinary Introduction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Cincuenta años de estudios del discurso [Fifty years of Discourse studies].” Discurso & Sociedad 9 (1–2): 15–32.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth and Michael Meyer (eds). 2001. Methods of Critical Analysis. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziemke, Tom, Jordan Zlatev and Roslyn M. Frank (eds). 2007 Body, Language and Mind, Vol. 1: Embodiment. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan. 1997. Situated Embodiment: Studies in the Emergence of Spatial Meaning. Stockholm: Gotab.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Serrano, María José
2018. The Construction of Advertising Discourse by the Use of the Second-Person Object Te and the Clitic Se . Pragmática Sociocultural / Sociocultural Pragmatics 6:2 ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.