Drawing as a Tool in Metaphor-Led Discourse Analysis

References

• Cameron, L. J. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, L. J., Low, G. D., & Maslen, R. (2010). Finding systematicity in metaphor use. In L. J. Cameron & R. Maslen (Eds.), Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and humanities (pp. 116–146). London: Equinox.
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, L. J., & Maslen, R. (Eds.). (2010). Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and humanities. London: Equinox.
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, L. J., Maslen, R., Todd, Z., Maule, J., Stratton, P., & Stanley, N. (2009). The discourse dynamic approach to metaphor and metaphor-led analysis. Metaphor and Symbol, 24(2), 63–89. doi:10.1080/10926480902830821
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron, L. J., & Stelma, J. H. (2004). Metaphor clusters in discourse. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 107–136. doi:10.1558/japl.2004.1.2.107
   Google Scholar
• Coll-Florit, M., & Climent, S. (2019). A new methodology for conceptual metaphor detection and formulation in corpora: A case study on a mental health corpus. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 32, 43–74.
   Google Scholar
• Darian, S. (2000). The role of figurative language in introductory science texts. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 163–186. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2000.tb00147.x
   Google Scholar
• Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Deignan, A., Littlemore, J., & Semino, E. (2013). Figurative language, genre and register. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Denroche, C. T. (2018). Text metaphtonymy: The interplay of metonymy and metaphor in discourse. Metaphor and the Social World, 8(1), 1–24. doi:10.1075/msw.16011.den
   Google Scholar
• Denroche, C. T. (2021). The Three Grammars and the sign. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 19(1), 206–231. doi:10.1075/rcl.00081.den
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon, G. (2006). Writing with images: Introduction: Imagetext, multiples, and other mixed modes. Washington.edu. Retrieved August 2, 2021, from https://courses.washington.edu/hypertxt/cgi-bin/12.228.185.206/html/wordsimages/wordsimages.html
   Google Scholar
• Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Fillmore, C. J. (2006 [1982]). Frame semantics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (pp. 373–400). Berlin & New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, R. W., & Perlman, M. (2006). The contested impact of cognitive linguistic research on the psycholinguistics of metaphor understanding. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives Applications of Cognitive Linguistics (Vol. 1, pp. 211–228). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Goatly, A. (1997). The language of metaphors. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Grady, J. (1997). Foundations of meaning: primary metaphor and primary scenes [ doctoral thesis]. Berkeley: University of California. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3g9427m2
   Google Scholar
• Jakobson, R. (2012 [1959]). On linguistic aspects of translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (3rd ed., pp. 126–131). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Koller, V. (2003). Metaphor clusters, metaphor chains: Analyzing the multifunctionality of metaphor in text. metaphorik de, 5, 115–134.
   Google Scholar
• Koller, V., & Davidson, P. (2008). Social exclusion as conceptual and grammatical metaphor: A cross-genre study of British policy-making. Discourse & Society, 19(3), 307–331. doi:10.1177/0957926508088963
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kövecses, Z. (2010). A new look at metaphorical creativity in cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(4), 663–697. doi:10.1515/cogl.2010.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kövecses, Z. (2011). Methodological issues in conceptual metaphor theory. In S. Handl & H. Schmid (Eds.), Windows to the mind (pp. 23–40). Berlin & New York, NY: De Gruyter Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Kövecses, Z. (2017). Conceptual metaphor theory. In E. Semino & Z. Demjén (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language (pp. 13–27). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kövecses, Z. (2020). An extended view of conceptual metaphor theory. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 18(1), 112–130. doi:10.1075/rcl.00053.kov
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kress, G. R. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kress, G. R. (2012). Multimodal discourse analysis. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 35–50). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kress, G. R., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kress, G. R., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. P. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. P. (2008). The neural theory of metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 17–38). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. P., & Johnson, M. L. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. P., & Johnson, M. L. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. P., & Johnson, M. L. (2003). Afterword. In Metaphors we live by (pp. 243–276). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Langacker, R. W. (1986). An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive Science, 10(1), 1–40. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1001_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langacker, R. W. (2006). On the continuous debate about discreteness. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(1), 107–151. doi:10.1515/COG.2006.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langacker, R. W. (2013). Essentials of cognitive grammar. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Machin, D. (2007). Introduction to multimodal analysis. London & New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Mittelberg, I. (2019). Visuo-kinetic signs are inherently metonymic: How embodied metonymy motivates forms, functions, and schematic patterns in gesture. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–18. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00254
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. doi:10.1080/10926480709336752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritchie, L. D. (2013). Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Semino, E., Deignan, A., & Littlemore, J. (2013). Metaphor, genre, and recontextualization. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(1), 41–59. doi:10.1080/10926488.2013.742842
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Semino, E., Heywood, J., & Short, M. (2004). Methodological problems in the analysis of metaphors in a corpus of conversations about cancer. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(7), 1271–1294. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Šorn, E., & Steen, G. J. (2018). VISMIP: Towards a method for visual metaphor identification. In G. J. Steen (Ed.), Visual metaphor: Structure and process (pp. 47–88). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Steen, G. J. (2007). Finding metaphor in grammar and usage. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., & Krennmayr, T. (2010). Metaphor in usage. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(4), 757–788. doi:10.1515/cogl.2010.024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Talmy, L. (2006 [1988]). Grammatical construal. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (pp. 69–108). Berlin & New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar