Doubleness in Experience: Toward a Distributed Enactive Approach to Metaphoricity

REFERENCES

• Bottineau, D. (2010). Language and enaction. In J. Stewart, O. Gappene, & E. A. Di Paolo ( Eds.), Enaction toward a new paradigm for cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, L. (1999). Identifying and describing metaphor in spoken discourse data. In G. Low & L. Cameron (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (pp. 105–132). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, L. (2007). Confrontation or complementarity?: Metaphor in language use and cognitive metaphor theory. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 5(1), 107–135.
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, L. (2011). Metaphor and reconciliation: The discourse dynamics of empathy in post-conflict conversations. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, L., Maslen, R., Todd, Z., Maule, J., Stratton, P., & Neil, S. (2009). The discourse dynamics approach to metaphor and metaphor-led discourse analysis. Metaphor and Symbol, 24(2), 63–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cowley, S. J. ( Ed.). (2011a). Distributed language. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Cowley, S. J. (2011b). Taking a language stance. Ecological Psychology, 23, 1–25.
   Google Scholar
• Cuffari, E., & Jensen, T. W. (in press). Living bodies: Co-enacting experience. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, & D. McNeill ( Eds.), Body - language - communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Berlin, Germany, and New York, NY: Mouton De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• De Jaegher, H. (2013). Rigid and fluid interactions with institutions. Cognitive Systems Research, 25 –26, 19–25.
   Google Scholar
• De Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E. (2007). Participatory sense-making. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 485–507. doi:10.1007/s11097-007-9076-9
   Google Scholar
• Di Paolo, E. A. (2006). Autopoiesis, adaptivity, teleology, agency. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 429–452. doi:10.1007/s11097-005-9002-y
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, J., Lakoff, G., Bailey, D., Narayanan, S., Regier, T., & Stolcke, A. (1996). L0 – The first five years of an automated language acquisition project. Artificial Intelligence Review, 10(1/2), 103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman, J. A. (2006). From molecule to metaphor: A neural theory of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fusaroli, R., & Morgagni, S. (2013). Introduction: Thirty years after. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1–2), 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Gallagher, S. (2007). Simulation trouble. Social Neuroscience, 2(3–4), 353–365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallagher, S. (2008). Intersubjectivity in perception. Continental Philosophy Review, 41(2), 163–178. doi:10.1007/s11007-008-9075-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geeraerts, D., & H. Cuyckens (2007). The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gendlin, E. (1962). Experiencing and the creation of meaning: A philosophical and psychological approach to the subjective. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gendlin, E., & Kleinberg-Levin, D. M. (1997). Language beyond post-modernism: Language and thinking in Gendlin’s philosophy. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, R. W. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, R. W. (2011). Evaluating conceptual metaphor theory. Discourse Processes, 48, 529–562.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbs, R. W. (2014). Why do some people dislike conceptual metaphor theory? Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1–2), 14–36.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, R. W., & Cameron, L. (2008). The social-cognitive dynamics of metaphor performance. Cognitive Systems Research, 9, 64–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. (1995). The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 347–378.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, R. W., & Santa Cruz, M. J. (2012a). Evaluating conceptual metaphor theory. Discourse Processes, 48, 529–562.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbs, R. W., & Santa Cruz, M. J. (2012b). Temporal unfolding of conceptual metaphoric experience. Metaphor and Symbol, 27, 299–311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giere, R. (2007). Distributed cognition without distributed knowing. Social Epistemology, 21, 313–320.
   Google Scholar
• Hodges, B. (2011). Ecological pragmatics: Values, dialogical arrays, complexity, and caring. In S. Cowley ( Ed.), Distributed language ( pp. 135–160). Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner ( Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation ( pp. 13–31). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, T. W. (2013). New perspectives on language, cognition and values. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 9(1), 71–78.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, T. W. (2014). Emotion in languaging: An ecological approach to the intertwined nature of language and emotion. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, article 720. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00720
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, C. (1997). Metaphor vs. conflation in the acquisition of polysemy: The case of see. In M. K Hiraga, C. Sinha, & S. Wilcox ( Eds.), Cultural, typological and psychological perspectives in cognitive linguistics. ( pp. 155–169) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and Reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, M. (2007). The meaning of the body: Aesthetics of human understanding. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
   Google Scholar
• Kendon, A. (1972). Some relationships between body motion and speech. In A. Seigman & B. Pope ( Eds.), Studies in dyadic communication ( pp. 177–216). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kendon, A. (1980). Gesture and speech: Two aspects of the process of utterance. In M. R. Key ( Ed.), Nonverbal communication and language ( pp. 207–227). The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Kövecses, Z. (2000). Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kravchenko, A. V. (2007). Essential properties of language, or, why language is not a code. Language Sciences, 29(5), 650–671.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. (2008). The neural theory of metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. ( Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought ( pp. 17–38). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Linell, P. (2005). The written language bias in linguistics: Its nature, origins and transformations. London, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge
   Google Scholar
• Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: IAP.
   Google Scholar
• Maturana, H. R. (1978). Biology of language: The epistemology of reality. In G. A. Miller & E. Lenneberg ( Eds.), Psychology and biology of language and thought: Essays in honor of Eric Lenneberg ( pp. 27–63). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Müller, C. (2007). Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking: A dynamic view. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Müller, C. (2008). What gestures reveal about the nature of metaphor. In A. Cienki & C. Müller ( Eds.), Metaphor and gesture (pp. 219–215). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Müller, C., & Tag, S. (2010). The dynamics of metaphor: Foregrounding and activating metaphoricity in conversational interaction. Cognitive Semiotics, 10(6), 85–120.
   Google Scholar
• Narayanan, S. (1997). KARMA: Knowledge-based action representations for metaphor and aspect (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley, California.
   Google Scholar
• Parrill, F. (2009). Dual viewpoint gestures. Gesture, 9(3), 271–289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parrill, F. (2010). Viewpoint in speech–gesture integration: Linguistic structure, discourse structure, and event structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(5), 650–668.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedersen, S. B. (2012). Interactivity in health care: Bodies, values and dynamics. Language Sciences, 34(5), 532–554.
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rączaszek-Leonardi, J. (2012). Language as a system of replicable constraints. In H. H. Pattee, & J. Rączaszek-Leonardi ( Eds.), Laws, language and life: Howard Pattee’s classic papers on the physics of symbols (pp. 295–333). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Regier, T. (1996). The human semantic potential: Spatial language and constrained connectionism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Steffensen, S. V. (2011). Beyond mind: An extended ecology of languaging. In S. Cowley ( Ed.), Distributed language ( pp. 185–210). Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Steffensen, S. V. (2012). Care and conversing in dialogical system. Language Sciences, 34(5), 513–531.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steffensen, S. V. (2013). Human interactivity: Problem-solving, solution-probing and verbal patterns in the wild. In S. J. Cowley & F. Vallée-Tourangeau ( Eds.), Cognition beyond the body: Interactivity and human thinking (pp. 219–245). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Taub, S. F. (2001). Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thibault, P. J. (2011). First-order languaging dynamics and second-order language: The distributed language view. Ecological Psychology, 23, 210–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zanotto, M. S., Cameron, L., & Cavalcanti, M. C. (2008). Confronting metaphor in use: An applied linguistic approach. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar