Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T12:57:10.730Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conceptual compression and alliterative form – a response to Harbus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2017

MARK TURNER
MARK TURNER*
Affiliation:
Department of Cognitive Science, Case Western Reserve University, 607 Crawford Hall, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106-7068, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Research in our time offers a welcome flood tide of investigation into how cognitively modern human beings use their basic mental operations to think and act. With luck, it will not ebb. It could become standard, in the way that calculus, once it arose, abided. This tide offers special emphasis, crucial for this issue, on the cognitive origins and operations of language and literature, and in particular on the ways in which systems of multimodal forms can be deployed to prompt for mental operation.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 21 , Special Issue 2: Cognitive approaches to the history of English , July 2017 , pp. 221 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Fauconnier, Gilles & Turner, Mark. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fillmore, Charles J. & Atkins, Beryl T.. 1992. Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In Lehrer, Adrienne & Kittay, Eva Feder (eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization, 75–102. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pagán Cánovas, Cristóbal & Turner, Mark. 2016. Generic integration templates for fictive communication. In Pascual, Esther & Sandler, Sergeiy (eds.), The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction, 45–62. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 2005. Whose rhyme is whose reason? Sound and sense in Cyrano de Bergerac. Language and Literature 15 (1), 29–54.Google Scholar
Turner, Mark. 2015. Blending in language and communication. In Dąbrowska, Ewa & Divjak, Dagmar (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics, 211–32. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Wilson, John. 1949. Egypt. In Frankfort, Henri (ed.), Before philosophy. New York: Pelican.Google Scholar