Cover not available
Review published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 16:2 (2018) ► pp.537–543
Book review

E. Pascual & S. Sandler (Eds.). The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction

Reviewed by
| Zhejiang University
Published online: 5 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00022.zha
References
Cooren, F.
(2010) Action and agency in dialogue: Passion, incarnation and ventriloquism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Communication theory at the center: Ventriloquism and the communicative constitution of reality. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 2(1), 133–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Goffman, E.
(1974) Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
(1981) Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Koven, M.
(2002) An analysis of speaker role inhabitance in narratives of personal experience. Journal of Pragmatics, 341, 167–217. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1999) Virtual reality. Studies in Linguistic Sciences, 29(2), 77–103.Google Scholar
Oakley, T., & Pascual, E.
(2017) Conceptual blending theory. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 423–448). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pascual, E.
(2002) Imaginary trialogues: Conceptual blending and fictive interaction in criminal courts. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
(2006) Fictive interaction within the sentence: A communicative type of fictivity in grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 245–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Fictive interaction: The conversation frame in thought, language and discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
(1996/2000) Toward a cognitive semantics, vol.1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A.
(2005) Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J.
(2007) Intersubjectivity, mimetic schemas and the emergence of language. Intellectica, 2–3(46–47), 123–152.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J., Racine, T. P., Sinha, C., & Itkonen, E.
(Eds.) (2008) The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar