Constructing a Broad Model for Proverb Understanding

References

• Anscombre, J. C. (1995). Les proverbes: Un figement du deuxième type ? Linx, 53, 17–32.
   Google Scholar
• Anscombre, J. C. (2001). Dénomination, sens et référence dans une théorie des stéréotypes nominaux. Cahiers de praxématique, 36, 43–72. doi:https://doi.org/10.4000/praxematique.304
   Google Scholar
• Anscombre, J. C. (2012). Le problème de l’antonymie dans le champ parémique. In J. C. Anscombre, A. Rodríguez Somolinos, & S. Gómez-Jordana Ferary (Eds.), Voix et marqueurs du discours: Des connecteurs à l’argument d’autorité (pp. 121–140). Lyon, France: ENS Editions.
   Google Scholar
• Anscombre, J. C. (2016). Sur la détermination du sens des proverbes. Etudes et travaux d’Eur’ORBEM, 1, 39–53.
   Google Scholar
• Anscombre, J. C. (2020). La théorie des stéréotypes: Référence, représentation du monde et morphologie lexicale. In E. Hilgert, S. Palma, G. Kleiber, P. Frath, & R. Daval (Eds.), Lexique et référence (pp. 13–32). Reims, France: Editions et presses universitaires de Reims.
   Google Scholar
• Cacciari, C., & Glucksberg, S. (1991). Understanding idiomatic expressions: The contribution of word meanings. In G. Simpson (Ed.), Understanding word and sentence (pp. 217–240). North Holland, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Cacciari, C., & Corradini, P. (2015). Literal analysis and idiom retrieval in ambiguous idioms processing: A reading-time study. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27(7), 797–811. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2015.1049178
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacciari, C., & Tabossi, P. (1988). The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(6), 668–683. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(88)90014-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caillies, S., & Butcher, K. (2007). Processing of idiomatic expressions: Evidence for a new hybrid view. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 79–108. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336754
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrol, G., & Littlemore, J. (2020). Resolving figurative expressions during reading: The role of familiarity, transparency, and context. Discourse Processes, 57(7), 609–626. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2020.1729041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cram, D. (1994). The linguistic status of the proverb. In W. Mieder (Ed.), Wise words: Essays on the proverb (pp. 73–98). New York, NY: Garland.
   Google Scholar
• Fauconnier, G. (1985/1994). Mental spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1996). Blending as a central process of grammar. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp. 113–130). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2003). Polysemy and conceptual blending. In B. Nerlich, V. Herman, Z. Todd, & D. Clarke (Eds.), Polysemy: Patterns of meaning in mind and language (pp. 79–94). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 33–187. doi:https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2000). Compression and global insight. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 283–304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Fradin, B. (1984). Anaphorisation et stéréotypes nominaux. Lingua, 64(4), 325–369. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(84)90067-6
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, R., & Beitel, D. (1995). What proverb understanding reveals about how people think. Psychological Bulletin, 1, 133–154. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.133
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, R. W., Nayak, N. P., & Cutting, C. (1989). How to kick the bucket and not decompose: Analyzability and idiom processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(5), 576–593. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90014-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1993). How metaphors work. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed., pp. 401–424). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glucksberg, S. (2008). How metaphors create categories – Quickly. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 67–83). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C. (2006). Can Florida become like the next Florida? When metaphoric comparisons fail. Psychological Science, 17(11), 935–938. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01807.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97(1), 3–18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glucksberg, S., & McGlone, M. S. (1999). When love is not a journey: What metaphors mean. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(12), 1541–1558. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00003-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Handl, S., & Schmid, H.-J. (Eds). (2011). Windows to the mind: Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual blending. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Honeck, R. P. (1997). A proverb in mind. The cognitive science of proverbial wit and wisdom. London, UK: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (1973). Toward a theory of proverb meaning. Proverbium, 22, 821–827.
   Google Scholar
• Kleiber, G. (1994). Nominales. Essai de sémantique référentielle. Paris, France: Armand Colin.
   Google Scholar
• Kleiber, G. (1999). Les proverbes: Des dénominations d’un type « très très spécial ». Langue Française, 123(1), 52–69. doi:https://doi.org/10.3406/lfr.1999.6296
   Google Scholar
• Kleiber, G. (2000). Sur le sens des proverbes. Langages, 139, 39–58. doi:https://doi.org/10.3406/lgge.2000.2379
   Google Scholar
• Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kövecses, Z. (2011). Recent developments in metaphor theory: Are the new views rival ones? Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 11–25. doi:https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.1.02kov
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kövecses, Z. (2017). Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(2), 321–347. doi:https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0052
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. (2008). The neural theory of metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 17–38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The 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
• Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press
   Google Scholar
• Lemghari, E. (2019a). A metonymic-based account of the semiotic status of proverbs: Against the “Deproverbialization Thesis”. The Linguistics Journal, 13, 30–51.
   Google Scholar
• Lemghari, E. (2019b). A metaphor-based account of semantic relations among proverbs. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 6(1), 158–184. doi:https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00034.lem
   Google Scholar
• Lemghari, E. (2020). Vers un modèle étendu de l’intégration conceptuelle des expressions multi-métaphoriques. SHS Web of Conferences, 78, 12002. doi:https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20207812002
   Google Scholar
• Lemghari, E. (in press). Metaphorical blending in complex proverbs. A case study. Metaphor and the Social World, 11(1),72-98.
   Google Scholar
• Libben, M., & Titone, D. (2008). The multidetermined nature of idiom processing. Memory & Cognition, 36(6), 1103–1121. doi:https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.6.1103
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manser, M. (2007). The facts on file dictionary of proverbs: Meanings and origins of more than 1,700 popular sayings (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Infobase Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• McGlone, M., Glucksberg, S., & Cacciari, C. (1994). Semantic productivity and idiom comprehension. Discourse Processes, 17(2), 167–190. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539409544865
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milner, G. B. (1969). What is a proverb? New Society, 332, 199–2002.
   Google Scholar
• Obelkevich, J. (1987). Proverbs and social history. In P. Burk & R. Porter (Eds.), The social history of language (pp. 43–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Parades, A. (1970). Proverbs and ethnic stereotypes. Proverbium, 15, 505–507.
   Google Scholar
• Pelletier, F. J. (1975). Non-Singular reference: Some preliminaries. Philosophia, 5(4), 451–465. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02379268
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelletier, F. J. (Ed). (1979). Mass terms: Some philosophical problems. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Pickering, D. (1997). Dictionary of proverbs. London, UK: Cassell.
   Google Scholar
• Putnam, H. (1975). Philosophical papers (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Quine, W. V. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schweigert, W., & Moates, D. (1988). Familiar idiom comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17(4), 281–296. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067198
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Tabossi, P., Fanari, R., & Wolf, K. (2009). Why are idioms recognized fast? Memory & Cognition, 37(4), 529–540. doi:https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.4.529
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Titone, D., & Connine, C. (1999). On the compositional and noncompositional nature of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(12), 1655–1674. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00008-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Titone, D., & Libben, M. (2014). Time-dependent effects of decomposability, familiarity and literal plausibility on idiom meaning activation: A cross-modal priming investigation. The Mental Lexicon, 9(3), 473–496. doi:https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.9.3.05tit
   Google Scholar
• Titone, D., Lovseth, K., Kasparian, K., & Tiv, M. (2019). Are figurative interpretations of idioms directly retrieved, compositionally built, or both? Evidence from eye movement measures of reading. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 73(4), 216–230. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000175
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, G. M. (1987). Proverbs and cultural models: An American psychology of problem solving. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 151–172). New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yankah, K. (1984). Do proverbs contradict? Folklore Forum, 17, 2–19.
   Google Scholar