Analysing the elements of a scene – An integrative approach to metaphor identification in a naturalistic setting

References

Bergen, Benjamin. 2012. Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar

Boström, Per. 2018. Det här är ju dött tåg liksom: En studie av metaforer för ROMANTISK KÄRLEK i talad svenska. [”This is like a dead train”: a study of metaphors for ROMANTIC LOVE in spoken Swedish]. Umeå: Umeå University.Search in Google Scholar

Brandt, Per Aage. 2016. Deixis – a semiotic mystery: Enunciation and reference. Cognitive Semiotics 9(1). 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2016-0001.Search in Google Scholar

Cameron, Lynne. 2008. Metaphor and talk. In Raymond W. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 197–211. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511816802.013Search in Google Scholar

Chu, Mingyan & Sotaro Kita. 2016. Co-thought and co-speech gestures are generated by the same action generation process. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 42(2). 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000168.Search in Google Scholar

Cienki, Alan. 2009. Conceptual Metaphor Theory in light of research on speakers’ gestures. Cognitive Semiotics 5(1–2). 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem.2013.5.12.349.Search in Google Scholar

Cienki, Alan. 2016. Analysing metaphor in gesture: A set of metaphor identification guidelines for gesture (MIG-G). In Semino Elena & Zsófia Demjén (eds.), The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language, 149–165. Abingdon: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Cienki, Alan & Cornelia Müller (eds.). 2008. Metaphor and gesture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/gs.3Search in Google Scholar

Cienki, Alan & Cornelia Müller. 2008. Metaphor, gesture, and thought. In Raymond Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 483–501. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511816802.029Search in Google Scholar

Coulson, Seana & Cristobal Pagán Cánovas. 2009. Understanding timelines: Conceptual metaphor and conceptual integration. Cognitive Semiotics 5(1–2). 198–219. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem.2013.5.12.198.Search in Google Scholar

Cowley, Stephen. 2009. Language flow: Opening the subject. Cognitive Semiotics 4(Suppl). 63–91. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem.2009.4.spring2009.63.Search in Google Scholar

Cuccio, Valentina & Sabina Fontana. 2017. Embodied Simulation and metaphorical gestures. Metaphor in communication, science and education, 77–91. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110549928-005Search in Google Scholar

Dreyfus, Benjamin, Ayush Gupta & Edward Redish. 2015. Applying conceptual blending to model coordinated use of multiple ontological metaphors. International Journal of Science Education 37(5–6). 812–838. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1025306.Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond. 2006. Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind & Language 21(3). 434–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00285.x.Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond. 2006. Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond. 2019. Metaphor as dynamical – ecological performance. Metaphor and Symbol 34(1). 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2019.1591713.Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond & Teenie Matlock. 2008. Metaphor, imagination, and simulation psycholinguistic evidence. In Raymond W. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 161–176. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511816802.011Search in Google Scholar

Gibson, James. 2015. The ecological approach to visual perception: Classic edition. New York: Psychology Press.10.4324/9781315740218Search in Google Scholar

Haglund, Jesper. 2017. Good use of a ‘bad’ metaphor. Science & Education 26(3). 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9892-4.Search in Google Scholar

Hostetter, Autumn & Martha Alibali. 2008. Visible embodiment: Gestures as simulated action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15(3). 495–514. https://doi.org/10.3758/pbr.15.3.495.Search in Google Scholar

Johansson Falck, Marlene. accepted. Lexico-encyclopedic conceptual (LEC) metaphors. In T. L. Fuyin (ed.), Handbook of cognitive semantics. Brill.Search in Google Scholar

Johansson Falck, Marlene & Lacey Okonski. 2022. Procedure for identifying metaphorical scenes (PIMS): A cognitive linguistics approach to bridge theory and practice. Cognitive Semantics 8(2). 294–322.10.1163/23526416-bja10031Search in Google Scholar

Johansson Falck, Marlene & Lacey Okonski. accepted. Procedure for identifying metaphorical scenes (PIMS): The case of spatial and abstract relations. Metaphor and Symbol.10.1080/10926488.2022.2062243Search in Google Scholar

Jensen, Thomas Wiben & Linda Greve. 2019. Ecological cognition and metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 34(1). 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2019.1591720.Search in Google Scholar

Kemmerer, David. 2005. The spatial and temporal meanings of English prepositions can be independently impaired. Neuropsychologia (43). 797–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.06.025.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald. 2002. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Inc.10.1515/9783110857733Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald. 2010. Cognitive grammar. In Dirk Geeraerts & Cuyckens Hubert (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0017Search in Google Scholar

Larsson, Andreas & Karin Stolpe. 2019. Talking code or typing code – unpacking the metaphorical structures in the programming classroom. Paper presented at the ESERA2019. Bologna, Italy.Search in Google Scholar

Larsson, Andreas & Karin Stolpe. 2022. Hands on programming: Teachers’ use of metaphors in gesture and speech make abstract concepts tangible. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09755-0.Search in Google Scholar

Larsson, Andreas, Karin Stolpe & Marlene Johansson Falck. 2021. A Teacher’s Hands on Programming: How orientations of gestures provide concrete dimensions to abstract thoughts. In Paper presented at the 14th conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA 2021), Braga, Portugal, 30 August to September 3.Search in Google Scholar

Low, Graham. 2008. Metaphor and education. In Raymond Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 212–231. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511816802.014Search in Google Scholar

Manches, Andrew, Peter McKenna, Gnanathusharan Rajendran & Judy Robertson. 2020. Identifying embodied metaphors for computing education. Computers in Human Behavior 105. 105859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.037.Search in Google Scholar

Masson-Carro, Ingrid, Goudbeek Martijn & Krahmer Emiel. 2016. Can you handle this? The impact of object affordances on how co-speech gestures are produced. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31(3). 430–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1108448.Search in Google Scholar

Masson-Carro, Ingrid, Martijn Goudbeek & Emiel Krahmer. 2020. What triggers a gesture? Exploring affordance compatibility effects in representational gesture production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 46(10). 1164–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000760.Search in Google Scholar

McNeil, David. 1985. So you think gestures are nonverbal? Psychological Review 92(3). 350. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.92.3.350.Search in Google Scholar

McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

McNeill, David. 2008. Gesture and thought. Chicago: University of Chicago press.Search in Google Scholar

Mittelberg, Irene. 2018. Gestures as image schemas and force gestalts: A dynamic systems approach augmented with motion-capture data analyses. Cognitive Semiotics 11(1). 20180002. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2018-0002.Search in Google Scholar

Mittelberg, Irene & Linda Waugh. 2009. Metonymy first, metaphor second: A cognitivesemiotic approach to multimodal figures of thought in co-speech gesture. In Charles J. Forceville & Eduardo Urios-Aparisi (eds.), Multimodal metaphor, 329–358. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110215366.5.329Search in Google Scholar

Müller, Cornelia. 2007. A dynamic view of metaphor, gesture and thought. In Susan Duncan, Justine Cassell & Elena Levy (eds.), Gesture and the dynamic dimension of language, 109–116. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/gs.1.12mulSearch in Google Scholar

Müller, Cornelia. 2009. Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking: A dynamic view. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226548265.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Müller, Cornelia. 2019. Metaphorizing as embodied interactivity: What gesturing and film viewing can tell us about an ecological view on metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 34(1). 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2019.1591723.Search in Google Scholar

Müller, Cornelia & Susanne Tag. 2010. The dynamics of metaphor. Foregrounding and activation of metaphoricity in conversational interaction. Cognitive Semiotics 10(6). 85–120. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem.2010.6.spring2010.85.Search in Google Scholar

Solomon, Amber, Miyeon Bae, Betsy DiSalvo & Mark Guzdial. 2020. Embodied representations in computing education: How gesture, embodied language, and tool use support teaching recursion. In Melissa Gresalfi & Ilana Seidel Horn (eds.), The interdisciplinarity of the learning sciences, 14th international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS) 2020, vol. 4, 2133–2140. Nashville, Tennessee: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Search in Google Scholar

Solvang, Lorena & Jesper Haglund. 2021. Learning with friction – students’ gestures and enactment in relation to a GeoGebra simulation. Research in Science Education 52. 1659–1675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-10017-7.Search in Google Scholar

Tang, Kok-Sing, Fredrik Jeppsson, Kristina Danielsson & Ewa Bergh Nestlog. 2022. Affordances of physical objects as a material mode of representation: A social semiotics perspective of hands-on meaning-making. International Journal of Science Education 44(2). 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.2021313.Search in Google Scholar