Bibliography.

Eclectic bibliography of/for multimodality in metaphor, story-telling and argumentation & other forms of discourse, almost always including the visual mode. Also accommodated are inspirational texts that primarily focus on language (compiled by ChF) [Last updated 26 May 2017]

AAA

  • Aarseth, Espen (2004). Genre trouble: Narrativism and the art of simulation. In: Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Pat Harrigan (eds.), First Person. New Media as Story, Performance and Game. Cambridge: MIT.    http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/firstperson/vigilant.
  • Abbott, Michael, and Charles Forceville (2011). “Loss of control is loss of hands in Azumanga Daioh volume 4.” Language and Literature 20(2): 91-112.
  • Abed, Farough. 1994. Visual puns as interactive illustrations: Their effects on recognition memory. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 9: 45-60.
  • Abdel-Raheem, Ahmed (2016). “Mostafa Houssien’s Satan’s family: Conceptual blending in a post-coup Egypt editorial cartoon. Metaphor and the Social World 6(2): 304-324.
  • Albrecht, C. (2007). “Wörter lügen manchmal, Bilder immer: Wissenschaft nach der Wende zum Bild.” In: Liebert and Metten (eds.), pp. 19-49.
  • Altman, Rick, ed. (1992). Sound Theory, Sound Practice. London/New York: Routledge.
  • Altman, Rick (1999). Film/Genre. London: British Film Institute.
  • Altman, Rick (2008). A Theory of Narrative. New York: Columbia University Press. [Altman adopts and explains a three-partite model in which narratives can develop: (1) dual-focus (a never-ending battle between “good” and “bad” guys is reported, as in The Song of Roland and many superhero comics; (2) single-focus (one character and his/her experience of the story-world is consistently “followed,” as in 19th and 20th c. novels and art films; (3) multiple-focus (narrative perspective constantly shifts from one character to another, with no definitive privileging of any of them. Coherence is achieved by an overarching concept. Examples include Tolstoy’s War and Peace and Griffith’s Intolerance). Excellent, well-written study ranging across periods (from medieval romances to the modern novel), languages (French, English), and media (novel, film).]
  • Andersen, Lars Pynt (2013). “Multimodal cueing of strategic irony.” In: Barry Pennock-Speck and Maria Milagros del Saz Rubio (eds), The Multimodal Analysis of Television Commercials (pp. 43-60). Valencia: Publicacions de la Universitat de València.

  • Archer, Dawn, and Peter Grundy, eds (2011). The Pragmatics Reader London: Routledge [This 500+ page reader contains mainly re-published classics by scholars such as Austin, Searle, Grice, Levinson and many others. I have read only section 3.2, “Relevance theoretic pragmatic,” which contains insightful papers by Diane Blakemore, Billy Clark, Robyn Carston, and Sperber and Wilson. These papers form a good introduction to those unfamiliar with RT; Clark’s paper presents news on recent developments and an up-to-date bibliography. Although, tellingly, “pragmatics” is considered almost completely synonymous with “pragmatics and linguistics,” it is encouraging that since pragmatics pertains so fundamentally to the role of context in interpretation, the discipline opens doors to visual and multimodal communication. For those interested in this development, I refer to Forceville (2014)].
  • Arnheim, Rudolf (1969). Visual Thinking. Berkeley etc.: University of California Press.
  • Anderson, Joseph D. (1996). The Realist Illusion: An Ecological Ap­proach to Cognitive Film Theory. Carbondale IL: Southern Illinois Uni­versity Press.
  • Anker­smit, F.R., and J. J. A. Mooij, eds (1993). Metaphor and Knowledge, pp. 21-35. Dor­drecht: Kluwer.
  • Aristotle ( 1987 [c.350 BC]). Poetics. Translated and edited by R. Janko. Indianapolis: Hackett.
  • Aristotle (1991 [4th c. BC]). On Rhetoric. Translated and edited by G.A. Kennedy.  New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Aumont, Jacques (1997). The Image. Tr. by Claire Pajackowska. London: Brit­ish Film Institute.
  • Austin, Thomas, and Wilma de Jong, eds (2008). Rethinking Documentary: New Perspectives, New Practices. McGraw-Hill: Open University Press.

BBB

  • Baetens, Jan, ed. (2001). The Graphic Novel. Leuven: University Press Leuven.
  • Bal, Mieke (2009). Narratology (3rd ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  • Baldry, Anthony, and Paul J. Thibault (2006). Multimodal Transcription and Text Analysis: A Multimedia Toolkit and Coursebook. London: Equinox.
  • Ballsteadt, Steffen-Peter (2005). “Instruktionale Bilder in der technischen Kommunikation.” In: Sachs-Hombach, pp. 385-399/
  • Ballstaedt, Steffen-Peter (2011). “Interkulturelle technische Kommunikation mit Bildern.” In: Sachs-Hombach and Totzke, pp. 28-441.
  • Bamberg, Michael, ed. (2006). Special issue “Narrative: State of the Art,” Narrative Inquiry 16:1.
  • Barcelona, Antonio, ed., (2000). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: a Cognitive Perspective. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Barker, Martin (1988). Comics: Ideology, Power and the Critics. Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press.
  • Bartsch, Renate (2003). “Generating polysemy: Metaphor and metonymy.” In: Dirven and Pörings (eds.), pp. 49–74.
  • Barthes, Roland (1986/1964). Rhetoric of the image. In: R. Barthes, The Responsibil­ity of Forms, pp. 21-40. Trans­. by R. Howard. Oxford: Black­well.
  • Bateman, John (2008). The decomposability of semiotic modes. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Multimodality (4ICOM), Singapore, July 2008.
  • Bateman, John (2008). Multimodality and Genre: A Foundation for the Systematic Analysis of Multimodal Documents. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Bateman, John A. (2014). “Looking for what counts in film analysis: A programme of empirical research.” In: David Machin (ed.), Visual Communication (301-329). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Bateman, John A. (2014). Text and Image: A Critical Introduction to the Visual/Verbal Divide. London: Routledge.
  • Bateman, John, Judy Delin, and Renate Henschel (2007). “Mapping the multimodal genres of traditional and electronic newspapers.” In: Royce and Bowcher (eds), pp. 147-172.
  • Bateman, John, Janina Wildfeuer, and TuomoHiippala (2017). Multimodality. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Beckerman, Howard (2003). Animation: The Whole Story (revised ed.). New York: Allworth Press.
  • Bell, Philip (2001). “Content analysis of visual images.” In: Theo van Leeuwen and Carey Jewitt (eds), Handbook of Visual Analysis, 10-34. Sage: London.
  • Behr, Manfred (2005). “Argumentation durch Bilder: Ein Aspekt politischer Ikonographie. In: Sachs-Hombach (ed.), pp. 212-229.
  • Benczes, Réka (2013). The role of alliteration and rhyme in novel metaphorical and metonymical compounds. Metaphor and Symbol 28: 167-184. [Benczes makes the important point that metaphor and metonymy researchers have insufficiently paid attention to the verbal forms in which such tropes (and perhaps others?) have been presented. Discussing examples such as “snail mail”, “street spam,” and “fleet feet,” Benczes argues that such “ludic” forms support the content of such tropical expressions in various ways: (1) phonological considerations guide word choice (this is why “belly button” is used far more often than “tummy button”); (2) they are attention-cathchers; (3) they can help decipher the meaning of novel expressions (the awareness that “brain gain” evokes “brain drain” may help interpreting it); (4) they aid acceptability and retention; (5) they are informal and therefore help foster intimacy between communicators.]
  • Bergen, Benjamin (2004). “To awaken a sleeping giant cognition and culture in September 11 political cartoons.” In: Michel Achard and Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Language, Culture, and Mind (23-35). Stanford, CA:  CSLI  Publications.
  • Black, Max (1979). More about metaphor. In: Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought pp. 19-43. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.
  • Blake, Andrew (2009). “Gender and ethnicity in the advertising industry.” In: Powell, Hardy, Hawkin, and MacRury (eds), pp. 109-118.
  • Blommaert, Jan (2005). Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press.
  • Boden, Margaret (1990). The Creative Mind. London: Abacus.
  • Bolter, Jay David, and Richard Grusin (1999). Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
  • Bordwell, David (1985). Narration in the Fiction Film. London: Routledge.
  • Bordwell, David (1997). On the History of Film Style. Cambridge MA/ London, Eng­land: Harvard University Press.
  • Bordwell, David (2008). Poetics of Cinema. New York: Routledge.
  • Bordwell, David, Janet Steiger, and Kristin Thompson (1985). The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style & Mode of Production to 1960. London: Routledge.
  • Bordwell, David, and Noël Carroll, eds (1996). Post-Theory: Reconstructing Film Studies. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press
  • Bordwell, David, and Thompson, Kirstin (2008). Film Art: An Introduction (8th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
  • Bounegru, Liliana, and Charles Forceville (2011). “Metaphors in editorial cartoons representing the global financial crisis.” Journal of Visual Communication 10: 209-229.
  • Boyd, Brian (2009). On the Origin of Stories: Evolution, Cognition, and Fiction. Cambridge, Mass./ London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  • Boyd, Brian (2012). Why Lyrics Last: Evolution, Cognition, and Shakespeare’s Sonnets. Cambridge, Mass/London, England: Harvard University Press.

  • Boyd, Brian, Joseph Carroll, and Jonathan Gottschall, eds (2010). Evolution, Literature & Film. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Branigan, Edward (1984). Point of View in the Cinema: A Theory of Narration and Subjectivity in Classical Film. Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton.
  • Branigan, Edward (1992). Narrative Comprehen­sion and Film. Lon­don: Routledge.
  • Brierley, Sean (1995). The Advertising Handbook (1st edn.). London: Routledge.
  • Brockmeier, Jens (2001). “From the end to the beginning: retrospective teleology in autobiography.” In: Brockmeier and Donal Carbaugh (eds.), pp. 247-280.
  • Brockmeier, Jens, and Donal Carbaugh, eds (2001). Narrative and Identity: Studies in Autobiography, Self and Culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Brooke-Rose, Christine (1958). A Grammar of Metaphor. London: Secker and Warburg.
  • Bruner, Jerome (2002). Making Stories: Law, Literature, Life. Cambridge, Mass./London, England: Harvard University Press.
  • Bruzzi, Stella (2006). New Documentary: A Critical Introduction (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
  • Bryant, Jennings, and Dolf Zillmann, eds (1991). Responding to the Screen: Reception and Reaction Processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Buchan, Suzanne, ed. (2006). Animated “Worlds.” London: John Libbey.
  • Buell, Emmett H. Jr, and Mike Maus. “Is the pen mightier than the word? Editorial cartoons and 1988 presidential nominating politics.” PS: Political Science and Politics 21: 847-858.
  • Burgers, Christian, Margot van Mulken, and Peter Jan Schellens (2012). “Verbal irony: Differences in usage across written genres.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 31(3): 290– 310.
  • Burgers, Christian, Margot van Mulken, and Peter Jan Schellens (2013). “The use of co-textual irony markers in written discourse.” Humor 26(1): 45-68.

CCC

  • Caballero, Rosario (2006). Re-Viewing Space: Figurative Language in Architects’ Assessment of Built Space. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Caballero, Rosario (2009). Cutting across the senses: imagery in winespeak and audiovisual promotion. In: Forceville and Urios-Aparisi, eds, pp. 73-94.
  • Câmara Pereira, Francisco (2007). Creativity and Artificial Intelligence: A Conceptual Blending Approach. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Cameron, Lynne, Robert Maslen, Zazie Todd, John Maule, Peter Stratton, and Neil Stanley (2009). “The discourse dynamics approach to metaphor and metaphor-led discourse analysis.” Metaphor and Symbol 24: 63-89.
  • Camargo, Edu­ardo G. (1987). “The measurement of meaning: Sherlock Holmes in pursuit of the Marlboro man.” In: Umiker-Sebeok (ed.), 463-483.
  • Campbell, Joseph (2008 [1949]). The Hero with a Thousand Faces (3rd ed.). Novato CA: New World Library.
  • Carroll, Noël (1990).  The Philosophy of Horror or: Paradoxes of the Heart. London/New York: Routledge.
  • Carroll, Noël (1994). “Visual metaphor.” In: Jaakko Hintikka (ed.), Aspects of Metaphor, 189-218. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • Carroll, Noël (1996). “A note on film metaphor.” In: Carroll, Theorizing, pp. 212-223.
  • Carroll, Noël (1996). “Prospects for film theory: A personal assessment.” In: Bordwell and Carroll (eds), pp. 37-68.
  • Carroll, Noël (1996). Theorizing the Moving Image. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Carroll, Noël (2009). On Criticism. London: Routledge. [see review ChF in Language and Literature.]
  • Carston, Robyn (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. [For my purposes, the most important claim in this classic in the Relevance Theory tradition is that explicatures are not necessarily the result of coded information; they can be inferred on the basis of non-coded information as well.]
  • Chanan, Michael (2007). The Politics of Documentary. London: BFI.
  • Charteris-Black, Jonathan (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
  • Chatman, Seymour (1990). Coming to Terms. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  • Chesebro, James W., and Dale A. Bertelsen (1996). Analyzing media: communication technologies as symbolic and cognitive systems. New York/London: Guilford Press.
  • Cienki, Alan (1998). Metaphoric gestures and some of their relations to verbal metaphoric expressions. In: Jean-Pierre Koenig (ed.), Discourse and Cognition: Bridging the Gap, pp. 189-204. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
  • Cienki, Alan (2005). “Image schemas and gesture”. In: Hampe (ed.), 421-441.
  • Cienki, Alan and Cornelia Müller, eds, (2008). Metaphor and Gesture. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Cila, Nazli (2013).Metaphors We Design By: The Use of Metaphors in Product Design.  PhD thesis Technical University Delft, The Netherlands. ISBN: 978-94-6191-890-1.
  • Clark, Billy (2013). Relevance Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Clark, Herbert H., (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Clark, Romy (1999). From text to performance: interpretation, or traduction? Trevor Griffiths’ Fatherland, as directed by Ken Loach. Language and Literature 8: 999-123.
  • Coëgnarts, Maarten, and Peter Kravanja (2010, winter) “Van concept tot beeld: een formele classificatie van filmische metaforen.” CineMagie 273: 49-60.
  • Coëgnarts, Maarten, and Peter Kravanja (2011, spring). “Filmische metaforen in Buster Keatons kortfilms.” Cinemagie 274: 33-42.
  • Maarten Coegnarts & Peter Kravanja (2012b). “Metaphors in Buster Keaton’s Short Films.” Image [&] Narrative 13(2): 133-146.
  • Coëgnarts, Maarten, and Peter Kravanja (2012). “From thought to modality: A theoretical framework for analysing structural-conceptual metaphor and image metaphor in film.” Image [&] Narrative 13(1): 96-113. [Good discussion of how metaphors, both “creative” (called “image metaphors” by Lakoff and Turner 1989) and structural-conceptual metaphors can be used in film. I agree with their assessment that while it is important to be aware of the differences between the two types, “image metaphors share one essential feature with conceptual metaphors: they are conceptual in nature” (p. 100); and with their insistence that image metaphors can contribute to structural-conceptual metaphoricity. The authors discuss a number of variables that are pertinent in the analysis of film metaphors, and rightly point out that the medium of film has affordances to create metaphors that are not (readily) available to other media. The variables are illustrated in analyses of several films (a.o. by Buster Keaton, Jacques Tati, Michaelangelo Antonioni, Werner Fassbinder).]
  • Coëgnarts, Maarten, and Peter Kravanja, eds (2015). Embodied Cognition and Cinema. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
  • Coëgnarts, Maarten, and Peter Kravanja (2015). “Film as an exemplar of bodily meaning-making.” In: Maarten Coëgnarts & Peter Kravanja, eds, Embodied Cognition and Cinema (17-40). Leuven: Leuven University Press.
  • Cohan, Steven, and Ina Rae Hark (1997). The Road Movie book. London/New York: Routledge.
  • Cohn, Dorit (2004 [1999]). “Freud’s case histories and the question of fictionality.” In Mieke Bal (ed.), Narrative Theory: Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural Studies (Part II), pp. (294-313). London: Routledge. [Excellent paper which not only defends Freud against criticisms that his case studies are literature rather than science, but passionately demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between between fiction and non-fiction. True, both of them may deploy narrative, but that is because human beings make sense of life thanks to story-telling. The idea that we live by stories is one I heartily endorse; I see strong parallels with work done in Johnson (1993, 2007; see also Forceville 2006, 20011; Forceville and Jeulink 2011).]
  • Cohn, Neil (2007). “A visual lexicon.”The Public Journal of Semiotics 1(1), pp. 35-56.
  • Cohn, Neil (2010). “Japanese Visual Language.” In: Toni Johnson-Woods (ed.), Manga: An Anthology of Global and Cultural Perspectives. London: Continuum, pp. 187-203.
  • Cohn, Neil (2010). “Extra! Extra! Semantics in Comics!” Journal of Pragmatics  42: 3138-3146.
  • Cohn, Neil (2013). The Visual Language of Comics: Introduction to the Structure and Cognition of Sequential Images. London: Bloomsbury.

  • Cohn, Neil, ed. (2016). The Visual Narrative Reader. London: Bloomsbury.

  • Connor, Kathleen, and Nathan Kogan (1980). “Topic-vehicle relations in metaphor: the issue of asymmetry.” In: Richard Honeck and Robert Hoffman (eds), Cognition and Figurative Language, pp.  283-308. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Cook, Guy (1992). The Discourse of Advertising. (revised editions published in 2001). London/New York: Routledge.
  • Cook, Guy (1994). Discourse and Literature: The Interplay of Form and Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Cook, Nicholas (1998). Analyzing Musical Multimedia. Oxford: Claren­don.
  • Correa-Beningfield, Margarita, Gitte Kristiansen, Ignasi Navarro-Ferrando, and Claude Vandeloise (2005). “Image schemas vs. complex primitives in cross-cultural spatial cognition.” In: Hampe (ed.), pp. 343-366.
  • Cotte, O. (2006). Secrets of Oscar-Winning Animation: Behind the Scenes of 13 Classic Short Animations.  Amsterdam: Focal Press.
  • Coulson, Seana, and Todd Oakley (2000). “Blending basics.” Cognitive Linguistics 11: 175-96.
  • Crisp, Peter (2003). “Conceptual metaphor and its expression.” In: Joanna Gavins, and Gerard Steen (eds.), Cognitive Poetics in Practice, pp. 99–113. London: Routledge.
  • Crisp, Peter (2005). “Allegory and symbol – a fundamental opposition?” Language and Literature 2005 14: 323-338
  • Crisp, Peter (2008). “Between extended metaphor and allegory: is blending enough?” Language and Literature 2008 17: 291–308.
  • Crisp, Peter (2012). “The Pilgrim’s Progress: Allegory or novel?” Language and Literature. 21(4) 328– 344.
  • Cupchik, Gerald D. (2003). The ‘interanimation’ of worlds: creative metaphors in art and design. The Design Journal 69(2): 14-28.
  • Currie, Gregory (1995). Image and Mind: Film, Philosophy, and Cog­nitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

DDD

  • D’Aiola, Adriano (2012, published 22 November). The intangible ground: A neurophenomenology of the film experience. NECSUS: European Journal of Media Studies 1 (2).  http://www.necsus-ejms.org/the-intangible-ground-a-neurophenomenology-of-the-film-experience/
  • Danaher, David (1998). “Peirce’s semiotic and conceptual metaphor theory.” Semiotica 119(1/2): 171-207.
  • Danjoux, Ilan (2007). “Reconsidering the decline of the editorial cartoon.” PS: Political Science and Politics 40: 245-248.
  • Danto, Arthur C. (1993). Metaphor and cognition. In: F. R. Anker­smit and J. J. A. Mooij (eds), pp. 21-35).
  • Dascal, Marcelo (2003 [1996]). “Understanding a metaphor: The beyond enterprise.” In: Interpretation and Understanding,  244-272. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Davies, Lewis J. (1995). “The multidimensional language of the cartoon: A study in aesthetics, popular culture, and symbolic interaction.” Semiotica 104 (1/2):165-211. [A semiotic approach, in which “cartoons” also include “comics” – and by extension even animations – with numerous, nice examples which unfortunately are often presented without historical political context, making them incomprehensible. In addition, the number of categories is depressingly large, which does result in an unworkable model. A good & quotable point is that the best cartoons are wordless and captionless.]
  • Deacon, Terence (2006). “The aesthetic faculty.” In: Mark Turner (ed.), The Artful Mind: Cognitive Science and the Riddle of Human Creativity, pp. 21-53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Dewell, R.B. (2005). “Dynamic patterns of containment.” In: Hampe (ed.), pp. 369-393.
  • Dirven, René, and Ralf Pörings, eds (2002). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Dodge, Ellen, and George Lakoff (2005). “Image schemas: From linguistic analysis to neural grounding”. In: Hampe (ed.), pp. 57-91.
  • Domínguez, Martí (2015). “On the origin of metaphors.” Metaphor and Symbol 30(3): 240-255.
  • Domínguez, Martí (2015). “The metaphorical species: evolution, adaptation and speciation of metaphors.”  Discourse Studies 17(4): 433-448.
  • Durand, Jacques (1987). “Rhetorical figures in the advertising image.” In:  Umiker-Sebeok (ed.), pp. 295-318.

EEE

  • Eemeren, Frans van (2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Eerden, Bart (2009). “Anger in Asterix: The metaphorical representation of anger in comics and animated films.” In: Forceville and Urios-Aparisi (eds), pp. 243-64.
  • Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Simon, Jonas Heide Smith, and Susana Pajares Tosca (2013). Understanding Video Games: The Essential Introduction (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. [Although I am not at all a gamer, I find games for various reasons theoretically interesting. Understanding Video Games is a balanced and complete book that addresses a wide variety of issues, and thus lives up to its subtitle. There are chapters on the game industry, game types, gaming culture, and on game history — the latter lavishly illustrated with screen shots. The last chapter is a calm evaluation of research on games’ risks, particularly the endlessly debated one that playing violent games may lead to aggressive behaviour (with a nuanced conclusion). From an AIM perspective, however, I find other chapters more pertinent. “Video game aesthetics” very usefully inventories the variables that enable systematic analysis of games, such as their rules, graphical style, physical perspective, 2D versus 3D worlds, off-screen space, audio tracks, and number of players involved. A second chapter that holds special interest for me is the one on the role of narrative in games — which ties in with the long controversy between “narrativists” and “ludologists” among game theorists (see Kromhout & Forceville 2013). Finally, a good chapter is devoted to “serious games,” discussing what, if any, role games can play in education, but also in other non-fiction genres, such as advertising. Good stuff!]
  • Eggertsson, Gunnar Theodór, and Charles Forceville (2009). “Multimodal expressions of the human victim is animal metaphor in horror films.” In: Forceville and Urios-Aparisi (eds), pp. 429-449.
  • Ekman, Paul (1992). “Are there basic emotions?”Psychological Review 99: 550-53.
  • El Refaie, Elisabeth (2003). “Understanding visual metaphors: the example of newspaper cartoons.” Visual Communication 2:1, 75-95.
  • El Refaie, Elisabeth (2009). “Metaphor in political cartoons: exploring audience responses.” In: Forceville and Urios-Aparisi (eds), pp. 173-196.
  • El Refaie, Elisabeth (2014) Looking on the dark and bright side: Creative metaphors of depression in two graphic memoirs. Auto/Biography Studies 29(1): 149-174.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989575.2014.921989
  • El Refaie, Elisabeth (2015). Reconsidering “image metaphor” in the light of perceptual simulation theory. Metaphor and Symbol 30(1): 63-76. DOI: 10.1080/10926488.2014.948799
  • Elleström, Lars (ed.) (2010). Media Borders, Multimodality and Intermediality. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
  • Eisner, Will (1985). Comics and Sequential Art. Tamarac, Flor.: Poorhouse Press.
  • Emanatian, Michelle (1995). “Metaphor and the expression of emotion: the value of cross-cultural perspectives. ” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10: 163-82.
  • Emmott, Catherine (1997). Narrative Comprehension. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Engelhardt, Yuri (2002). The Language of Graphics: A Framework for the Analysis of Syntax and Meaning in Maps, Charts and Diagrams. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation.
  • Erwin, Kim (2013). Communicating the New: Methods to Shape and Accelerate Innovation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

  • Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

FFF

  • Fahlenbrach, Kathrin (2007). “Embodied spaces: Film spaces as (leading) audiovisual metaphors”. In: Joseph D. Anderson and Barbara Fisher Anderson (eds), Narration and Spectatorship in Moving Images, pp. 105-124. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar Press.
  • Fahlenbrach, Kathrin (2010). Audiovisuelle Metaphern. Marburg: Schüren.
  • Fahlenbrach, Kathrin (ed.), Embodied Metaphors in Film, Television, and Video Games. London: Routledge.
  • Fauconnier, Gilles (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner (1998). “Conceptual integration networks.”Cognitive Science 22: 133-87.
  • Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner (2000). “Compression and global insight.” Cognitive Linguist­ics 11: 283-304.
  • Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books. [see review ChF in Metaphor and Symbol.]
  • Fein, Ofer, and Asa Kasher (1996). “How to do things with words and gestures in comics.” Journal of Pragmatics 26: 793-808.
  • Feteris, Eveline T., Leo Groarke, and H. José Plug (2011). “Strategic maneuvering with visual arguments in political cartoons: A pragma-dialectical analysis of the use of topoi that are based on common cultural heritage.” In: Eveline T. Feteris, Bart Garssen, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, eds, Keeping in Touch with Pragma-Dialectics: In Honor of Frans H. van Eemeren, pp. 59-74. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Fludernik, Monika (1996). Towards a “Natural” Narratology. London: Routledge.
  • Fludernik, Monika, ed. (2011). Beyond Cognitive Metaphor Theory: Perspectives on Literary Metaphor. London: Routledge.
  • Fokkema, Douwe, and Elrud Ibsch (2000). Knowledge and Commitment: A Problem-oriented Approach to Literary Studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Forceville, Charles (1988). “The case for pictorial metaphor: René Magritte and other Surrealists.” In: Aleš Erjavec (ed.),Vestnik 9, pp. 150-60. Ljubljana, YU [Inštitut za Marksistične Študije].
  • Forceville, Charles (1994). “Pictorial metaphor in billboards: relevance theory per­spec­tives.” In: Jürgen E. Müller (ed.), Towards A Pragmatics of the Audiovisual vol. 1 (93-113). Münster: Nodus.
  • Forceville, Charles (1994). “Pictorial metaphor in advertisements.” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 9: 1-29.
  • Forceville, Charles (1995). “(A)symmetry in metaphor: the importance of extended context.” Poetics Today 16: 677-708.
  • Forceville, Charles (1996). Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. London: Routledge.
  • Forceville, Charles (1999). “Art or ad? The effect of genre-attribution on the interpretation of images.” SPIEL 18: 279-300.
  • Forceville, Charles (1999). “The metaphor COLIN IS A CHILD in Ian McEwan’s, Harold Pinter’s, and Paul Schrader’s The Comfort of Strangers.” Metaphor and Symbol 14: 179-198.
  • Forceville, Charles (1999). Educating the eye? Kress and Van Leeuwen’s Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design (1996). Review article, Language and Literature 8:2, 163-178.
  • Forceville, Charles (2000). “Compasses, beauty queens and other PCs: pictorial metaphors in computer advertisements,” Hermes, Journal of Linguistics 24 (ed. Carlo Grevy), 31-55.
  • Forceville, Charles (2002). “The conspiracy in The comfort of strangers — narration in the novel and the film.” Language and Literature 11: 131-147.
  • Forceville, Charles (2002). “The identification of target and source in pictorial metaphors.” Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1-14.
  • Forceville, Charles (2003). “Bildliche und multimodale Metaphern in Werbespots” [Translated from English by Dagmar Schmauks] Zeitschrift für Semiotik 25: 1-2, 39-60.
  • Forceville, Charles (2004). Review of Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. Metaphor and Symbol 19: 83-89.
  • Forceville, Charles (2004–2013). Eight-lecture Course in Pictorial and Multimodal Metaphor (8/8 lectures completed). http://semioticon.com/sio/courses/pictorial-multimodal-metaphor/
  • Forceville, Charles (2005). “Visual representations of the Idealized Cognitive Model of anger in the Asterix album La Zizanie.” Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1, 69-88.
  • Forceville, Charles (2005). “Addressing an audience: time, place, and genre in Peter van Straaten’s calendar cartoons.” Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 18:3, 247-278.
  • Forceville, Charles (2006). ”Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research.” In: Gitte Kristiansen, Michel Achard, René Dirven, and Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza Ibàñez (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives (379-402). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Forceville, Charles (2006). “The source-path-goal schema in the autobiographical journey documentary: McElwee, Van der Keuken, Cole.” New Review of Film and Television Studies 4:3, 241-261.
  • Forceville, Charles (2007). Review of Anthony Baldry & Paul J. Thibault, Multimodal Transcription and Text Analysis: A Multimedia Toolkit and Coursebook (Equinox 2006). Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1235-1238.
  • Forceville, Charles (2007). “Multimodal metaphor in ten Dutch TV commercials.” Public Journal of Semiotics 1(1): 19-51. http://semiotics.ca/
  • Forceville, Charles (2008). “Metaphor in pictures and multimodal representations.” In: Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (462-482). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Forceville, Charles (2008). “Pictorial and multimodal metaphor in commercials.” In: Edward F. McQuarrie and Barbara J. Phillips (eds), Go Figure! New Directions in Advertising Rhetoric. Armonk NY: ME Sharpe, 272-310.
  • Forceville, Charles (2008). “Bumper stories: the framing of commercial blocks on Dutch public television.” In: Jaap Kooijman, Patricia Pisters, and Wanda Strauven (eds), Mind the Screen: Media Concepts According to Thomas Elsaesser. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 229-241.
  • Forceville, Charles (2009). ”Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research.” In: Forceville and Urios-Aparisi (eds), pp. 19-42 (Reprinted version, with minor corrections, of Forceville 2006).
  • Forceville, Charles (2009). “The role of non-verbal sound and music in multimodal metaphor.” (Revised version of Forceville 2004), In: Forceville and Urios-Aparisi (eds), pp. 383-400.
  • Forceville, Charles (2009). Review of Terry D. Royce & Wendy L. Bowcher (eds), New Directions in the Analysis of Multimodal Discourse (Lawrence Erlbaum 2007). Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1459-1463.
  • Forceville, Charles (2009). “Metonymy in visual and audiovisual discourse.” In: Eija Ventola and Arsenio Jésus Moya Guijarro (eds), The World Told and the World Shown: Issues in Multisemiotics. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 56-74.
  • Forceville, Charles (2009). “Relevanz und Prägnanz: Kunst als Kommunikation.” Tr. by Martina Plümacher. Zeitschrift für Semiotik 31(1-2): 31-63.
  • Forceville, Charles (2010). “Why and how study metaphor, metonymy, and other tropes in multimodal discourse?” In: Augusto Soares da Silva, José Cândido Martins, Luísa Magelhães, and Miguel Gonçalves (eds), Comunição, Cognição e Media, Vol. I. Braga: Aletheia, pp. 41-60; simultaneously published in: Rosario Caballero and Maria Jesús Pinar (eds), Ways and Modes of Human Communication. Cuenca: Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla La Mancha, pp. 57-76.
  • Forceville, Charles (2010). Review of Carey Jewitt (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis (2009). Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2604-2608.
  • Forceville, Charles (2011). “Pictorial runes in Tintin and the Picaros.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 875-890.
  • Forceville, Charles (2011). “The Source-Path-Goal schema in Agnès Varda’s Les Glaneurs et la Glaneuse and Deux Ans Après.” In: Monika Fludernik (ed.), Beyond Cognitive Metaphor Theory: Perspectives on Literary Metaphor (281-297). London: Routledge.
  • Forceville, Charles (2011). “Practical cues for helping develop image and multimodal discourse scholarship.” In: Klaus Sachs-Hombach and Rainer Totzke (eds), Bilder, Sehen, Denken: ZumVerhältnis von begrifflich-philosophischen und empirisch-psychologischen Ansätzen in der bildwissenschaftlichen Forschung. Cologne: Von Halem, pp. 33-51.
  • Forceville, Charles (2012). “Creativity in pictorial and multimodal advertising metaphors.” In: Rodney Jones (ed.), Discourse and Creativity (113-132). Harlow: Pearson/Longman.
  • Forceville, Charles (2012). Review of Gunther Kress, Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Appraoch to Contemporary Communication (Routledge 2010). Journal of Pragmatics 43(14): 3624-3626.
  • Forceville, Charles (2013). “Creative visual duality in comics balloons.” In: Tony Veale, Kurt Feyaerts, and Charles Forceville, eds (pp. 253-273).
  • Forceville, Charles (2013). “The strategic use of the visual mode in advertising metaphors.” In: Emilia Djonov and Sumin Zhao (eds), Critical Multimodal Studies of Popular Culture (55-70). New York: Routledge.
  • Forceville, Charles (2013). “Metaphor and symbol: SEARCHING FOR ONE’S IDENTITY IS LOOKING FOR A HOME in animation film.” In: Maria Jesús Pinár (ed), “Multimodality and Cognitive Linguistics” issue of Review of Cognitive Linguistics 11(2): 250-268doi 10.1075/rcl.11.2.03for
  • Forceville, Charles (2014.). “Relevance Theory as model for analysing visual and multimodal communication.” In: David Machin (ed.), Visual Communication (51-70). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Forceville, Charles (2016). “Visual and multimodal metaphor in film: Charting the field.” In: Kathrin Fahlenbrach (ed.), Embodied Metaphors in Film, Television, and Video Games (17-32). London: Routledge.
  • Forceville, Charles (2016). “Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Blending Theory, and other cognitivist perspectives on comics.” In: Neil Cohn (ed.), The Visual Narrative Reader (89-114). London: Bloomsbury.
  • Forceville, Charles (2016). “Mixing in pictorial and multimodal metaphors?” In: Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. (ed.), Mixing Metaphor (223-239). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Forceville, Charles (2017). Book review of Francisco Yus, Humour and Relevance (Benjamins 2016, ISBN 978-90-272-0231-4). Journal of Pragmatics 107: 84-86.
  • Forceville, Charles, and Eduardo Urios-Aparisi, eds. (2009). Multimodal Metaphor. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Forceville, Charles, and Eduardo Urios-Aparisi (2009). “Introduction.” In: Forceville and Urios-Aparisi (eds), pp. 3-17. http://www.degruyter.de/files/pdf/9783110205152Introduction.pdf
  • Forceville, Charles, Tony Veale, and Kurt Feyaerts (2010). “Balloonics: The visuals of balloons in comics.” In: Joyce Goggin and Dan Hassler-Forest (eds), The Rise and Reason of Comics and Graphic Literature: Critical Essays on the Form. Jefferson NC: McFarland, pp. 56-73.
  • Forceville, Charles, and Marloes Jeulink (2011). “The flesh and blood of embodied understanding: the source-path-goal schema in animation film.” Pragmatics & Cognition 19(1): 37-59.
  • Forceville, Charles, and Thijs Renckens (2013). “The GOOD IS LIGHT and BAD IS DARK metaphors in feature films.” Metaphor and the Social Word 3(2): 160-179.
  • Forceville, Charles, Lisa El Refaie, and Gert Meesters (2014). “Stylistics and comics.” In: Michael Burke (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Stylistics (485-499). London: Routledge.
  • Forceville, Charles, and Billy Clark (2014). “Can pictures have explicatures?” Linguagem em (Dis)Curso 14(3): 451-472. [Brasil, special issue on Relevance Theory, edited by Francisco Yus.]
  • Franklin, Margery B. (1988). “‘Museum of the mind’: an inquiry into the titling of artworks.” Meta­phor and Symbolic Activity 3: 157-174.
  • Fresnault-Deruelle, Pierre (1972). Dessins et Bulles: La Bande Dessinée comme Moyen d’ Expression. Paris: Bordas.
  • Fresnault-Deruelle, Pierre (1977). “La visualization des phénomènes sonores.” In: Récits et Discours par la Bande: Essais sur les Comics, pp. 169-201. Paris: Hachette.
  • Frith, Simon (1996). Performing Rites: On the Value of Popular Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Frow, John (2006). Genre. London: Routledge.
  • Furniss, Maureen (1998). Art in Motion: Animation Aesthetics. London: John Libbey.

GGG

  • Gallese, Vittorio, and Michele Guerra (2012). “Embodying movies: Embodied simulation and film studies.” Cinema: Journal of Philosophy and the Moving Image 3: 183-210. [In this paper the authors persuasively argue for the centrality of “embodied simulation” in film scholarship. Ever since the discovery of “mirror neurons,” it is generally accepted that human beings are prone to mentally simulating other people’s emotions. But something similar holds for (potential) actions: “observing an action causes in the observer the activation of the same neural mechanism that is triggered by executing that action oneself” (p. 184). This holds for mediated no less than for unmediated perception. Clearly, film is thus of crucial interest to neuroscience. The authors do a good job building bridges between various paradigms within the humanities. While the links to phenomenological (Merleau-Ponty, Sobchack) and cognitivist approaches (not just film scholars such as Bordwell and Murray Smith, but also linguists such as Lakoff [with whom Gallese co-published] and Johnson) seem obvious, they also discuss how their views tie in with Deleuzian perspectives. The authors nicely emphasize the importance of (perceived) movement by claiming that “our brain serves primarily one purpose, moving us around, a crucial activity for our conceptual life too” (p. 190) — see Forceville and Jeulink (2011) for analyses that perfectly fit this claim. The paper ends with two case studies by Hitchcock (Notorious) and Antonioni (Il Grido). In short, this kind of work provides a platform that can help integrate various paradigms that currently focus on “embodied cognition.”]
  • Gasca, Luis, and Roman Gubern (2001 [1994]). El Discurso del Comic. Madrid : Catedra.
  • Geeraerts, Dirk (2006). “Methodology in Cognitive Linguistics.” In: Gitte Kristiansen et al. (eds), pp. 21-49.
  • Gentner, Dedre, and Arthur B. Markman (1997). “Structure mapping in analogy and similarity.” American Psychologist 52: 45-56.
  • Gentner, Dedre, and Jeffrey Loewenstein (2002). “Relational language and relational thought. In: Eric Amsel and James P. Byrnes (eds.), Language, Literacy, and Cognitive Development, 87-120. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Gentner, Dedre, and Brian Bowdle (2008). “Metaphor as structure-mapping.” In: Gibbs (ed.), pp. 109-128.
  • Gerrig, Richard J. (1991). Experiencing Narrative Worlds: On the Psychological Activities of Reading. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.
  • Gevaert, Caroline (2001). “Anger in Old and Middle English: a “hot” topic?” Belgian Essays on Language and Literature: 89–101.
  • Gevaert, Caroline (2005). “The anger is heat question: detecting cultural influence on the conceptualisation of anger through diachronic corpus analysis.” In:  Nicole Delbecque, Johan van der Auwera, and Dirk Geeraerts (eds.), Perspectives on Variation, pp. 195–208. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Giannetti, Louis D. (1972). “Cinematic metaphors.” Journal of Aesthetic Education 6(4): 49-61.
  • Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr (1993). “Process and products in making sense of tropes.” In: Ortony (ed.), pp. 252-176.
  • Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr (1994). The Poetics of the Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr, and Herbert L. Colston (1995). “The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations.” Cognitive Linguistics 6: 347-378.
  • Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr (1999). Intentions in the Experience of Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr (1999). “Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world.” In: Gibbs and Steen (eds.), pp. 145-166.
  • Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. (2005). “The psychological status of image schemas”. In: Hampe (ed.), pp. 113-135.
  • Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr (2006). Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr, ed. (2008). The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr. (2011): “Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory.” Discourse Processes 48(8): 529-562. [Gibbs gives a summary of the various strands of research conducted in the paradigm, reports how experimental research by and large confirms and refines its theoretical findings, and addresses some criticisms.]
  • Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr. (2012). “Metaphors, snow flakes, and termite nests: how nature creates such beautiful things.” In: Fiona MacArthur, José Luis Oncins-Martínez, Manuel, Sánchez-García, and Ana María Piquer-Píriz (eds), Metaphor in Use: Context, Culture, and Communication (347-371). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr, and Gerard J. Steen (eds.) (1999). Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr, and Marcus Perlman (2006). “The contested impact of cognitive linguistic research on the psycholinguistics of metaphor and understanding.” In: Kristiansen et al. (eds), pp. 211-228.
  • Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr., and Malaika J. Santa Cruz (2012). “Temporal unfolding of conceptual metaphoric experience.” Metaphor and Symbol 27(4): 299-311.
  • Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Gineste, Marie-Dominique, Bipin Indurkhya, and Veronica Scart (2000). “Emergence of features in metaphor comprehension.” Metaphor and Symbol 15: 117-135.
  • Goatley, Andrew (1997 ). The Language of Metaphors. London: Routledge.
  • Goffman, Erving (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper & Row.
  • Goggin, Joyce, and Dan Hassler-Forest, eds (2010). The Rise and Reason of Comics and Graphic Literature: Critical Essays on the Form. Jefferson, NC: McFarlane.
  • Gombrich, Ernst H. (1999). The Uses of Images:  Studies in the Social Function of Art and Visual Communication. London: Phaidon Press.
  • Górska, Elżbieta (2010). Life is music: a case study of a novel metaphor and its use in discourse. English Text Construction 3(2): 275-293.
  • Grady, Joe (1997). “THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited.” Cognitive Linguistics 8(4): 267-290.
  • Grady, Joe (1997). Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary Scenes. University of Berkeley, USA, unpublished PhD thesis.
  • Grady, Joseph E. (1999). “A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance.” In: Gibbs and Steen (eds), 79-100.
  • Grady, Joseph E. (2005). “Image schemas and perception: Refining a definition”. In: Hampe (ed.), pp. 35-55.
  • Grady, Joseph, Todd Oakley, and Seana Coulson (1999). “Blending and metaphor.” In: Gibbs and Steen (eds), pp. 101-124.
  • Grice, H. Paul (1975). “Logic and conversation.” In: Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 41-58.
  • Grodal, Torben (1997). Moving Pictures: A New Theory of Film Genres, Feelings, and Cognition. Oxford: Clarendon.
  • Grodal, Torben (2009). Embodied Visions: Evolution, Emotion, Culture, and Film. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [By far the most elaborate and eloquent case for an evolutionary approach to film interpretation, Grodal’s book nonetheless nowhere downplays the importance of film’s cultural dimensions. Based on his PECMA (perception, emotion, cognition, and motor action) model, the author discusses facets of this issue with respect to a variety of film genres. The appendix illustrates PECMA with reference to Lars von Trier’s films — and along the way contains many insightful observation on the Danish director’s work.]
  • Groensteen, Thierry (2013 [2011, French original]). Comics and Narration. Tr. By Ann Miller. Jackson Mississippi: University Press of Mississippi.

HHH

  • Hampe, Beatrice (ed.) (2005). From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Hampe, Beatrice (2005). “When down is not bad, and up not good enough. A usage-based assessment of the plus-minus parameter in image-schema theory.” Cognitive Linguistics 16: 81-112.
  • Harth, M. (2005). “Grundbegriffe einer Bild-Semantik.” In: Sachs-Hombach (ed.), pp. 230-241.
  • Haser, Verena (2005). Metaphor, Metonymy, and Experientialist Philosophy: Challenging Experientialist Philosophy. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Hatfield, Charles (2005). Alternative Comics: An Emerging Literature. Jackson, Miss.: University Press of Mississipi.
  • Hausman, Carl R. (1989). Metaphor and Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hayward, Malcolm (1994). “Genre recognition of history and fiction.” Poetics 22: 409–421.
  • Hekkert, Paul, Dirk Snelders, Piet van Wieringen (2003), “‘Most advanced, yet acceptable’: Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychology 94: 111-124.
  • Herman, David (2002). Story Logic: Problems and Possibilities of Narratives. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press.
  • Herman, David, ed. (2011). The Emergence of Mind: Representations of Consciousness in Narrative Discourse in English. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press. [In this volume, experts on different periods of English literature, ranging from Old English to the present, investigate how literary character’s unspoken thoughts and feelings were rendered in their day and age. This historical perspective is illuminating as it can correct generalizations by narratologists who are biased toward the 19th, 2oth, and 21st centuries. Here a obervations on a few chapters. Leslie Lockett’s chapter (700-1050) discusses among other things Conceptual Metaphor Theory’s (including Kövecses’ work) contribution to the issue at stake, arguing that “ideas of embodied realism can benefit [the] historical study of processes by which literal concepts acquire the status of metaphors” (p. 57). Monika Fludernik (1050-1500) argues that the content of thought processes of characters in the texts she studied are not always verbalized. Elizabeth Bradburn (1620-1700) shows how characters’ thoughts are often structured on the JOURNEY metaphor (THE MIND IS A BODY MOVING IN SPACE). Nicholas Dames (1825-1880) questions the predominant view of Victorian fiction as primarily celebrating character. Rather, in this fiction, he suggests, “narrative voice was finally more distinctive than character; … agency is dispersed into, or translated onto, plot rather than the decisions of characters, whereby accident becomes a category of considerable importance; … somatic shocks take the place of language as an instrument of communication; …. deluded selves can only find understanding in an ontological frame — narration — to which they have no access” (p. 236). David Herman (1880-1945) believes that theorists of Modernist fiction have over-emphasized the    importance of characters’ mental life sui generis. Rather, Modernist hero(in)es reflect on the interaction of their thought processes and their environment: “the upshot of modernist experimentation was not to plum psychological depth, but to spread the mind abroad — to suggest that human psychology has the profile it does because of the extent to which it is interwoven with wordly circumstances. The mind does not reside within; instead, it emerges through humans’ dynamic interdependencies with the social and material environments they seek to navigate (p. 254).]
  • Herman Luc, and Bart Vervaeck (2005). Handbook of Narrative Analysis. Lincoln/London: University of Nebraska Press (231 pp). [This monograph, which originally appeared in Dutch, presents a sober survey of the fascinating but complex discipline of narratology, exclusively focused on written fiction. The three chapters comprise the pre-structuralist theory, the heyday of structuralist work, and post-classical approaches. In these latter, the authors devote space to feminist approaches (but not, as one might have expected, to ethnic or class-oriented ones) as well as to possible world and reader-response angles. Given the origins of the book, it is not surprising that many of the primary texts referred to are by Dutch and Flemish authors, but there are also brief discussions of other, mainly English, canonical works. Very usefully, Herman and Vervaeck have incorporated English translations of two richly meaningful short stories by Charlotte Mutsaers (1 page) and Gerrit Krol (2 pages), which allow them continually to apply, and contrast, the insights offered by different models. The book has a sober, transparent, though not very vivid style. An index, and key words in the margins of the pages, aid readers to quickly find what they look for.]
  • Hjort, Mette, and Sue Laver, eds (1997). Emotion and the Arts. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Holyoak, Keith J., Dedre Gentner, and Boicho N. Kokinov (2001). “Introduction: The place of analogy in cognition.” In: Dedre Gentner, Keith J. Holyoak, and Boicho N. Kokinov (eds.), The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science, pp. 1-19. Cambridge Mass./London, England: MIT Press.
  • Holsanova, Jana (2014). “In the eye of the beholder: Visual communication from a recipient perspective.” In: David Machin (ed.), Visual Communication (331-355). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Honess Roe, Annabelle (2013). Animated Documentary. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. [First monograph on “animentary,” with pertinent considerations of how visuals and language contribute to the credibility of documentaties. Contains a number of in-depth case studies. Forceville published a review of the book to Journal of Pragmatics in 2015.]
  • Horstkotte, Silke, and Nancy Pedri (2011). “Focalization in graphic narrative.” Narrative 19(3): 330-357. [Excellent paper, emphasizing that focalization has wrongly, for instance by Bal (2009) primarily been treated as a matter of (visual) perception. However, focalization must be understood as the result of perception in general (and not just its visual variety) and cognition. It is the combination of what a focalizing character knows (and beliefs, and feels) and his or her sensory perception that is responsible for the audience’s opportunities to empathize with him/her — or fail to do so. This situation becomes more complex if focalization occurs in more than one modality, as for instance in comics and graphic novels, which draw on visuals and words. Here, dual focalization can occur because of medium-specific affordances of such discourses. It is important not to make the mistake to conflate focalization with visual perception in a medium in which the visual is so important. The paper draws on examples from PersepolisMaus, and Watchmen.]
  • Huber, H. D. (2005). “Systemische Bildwissenschaft.” In: Sachs-Hombach, K. (ed.), pp. 155-162.
  • Hurst, Matthias (1996). Erzählsituationen in Literatur und Film: Ein Modell zu vergleichenden Analyse von literarischen Texten und filmischen Adaptionen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
  • Hutchins, Edwin (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, Mass./London, England: MIT Press.

III

  • Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide (2013). “The relationship between conceptual metaphor and culture.” Intercultural Pragmatics 10(2): 315-339.
  • Ildirar, Sermin, and Stephan Schwan (2011).  “Watching films for the first time.” In: Sachs-Hombach and Totzke (eds), pp. 192-203.
  • Indurkhya, Bipin (1991). “Modes of metaphor.” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 6: 1-27.
  • Indurkhya, Bipin (1992). Metaphor and Cognition: An Interactionist Approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • Indurkhya, Bipin (2013). “Computers and creativity.” In: Veale, Feyaerts, and Forceville, eds, pp. 61-79.
  • Indurkhya, Bipin, and Amitash Ojha (2013). “An empirical study on the role of perceptual similarity in visual metaphors and creativity.” Metaphor and Symbol 28: 233-253.

JJJ

  • Jewitt, Carey, ed. (2009). The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. London: Routledge [see review by ChF in Journal of Pragmatics].
  • Johnson, Mark (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Johnson, Mark (1993). Moral Imagination: Implications of Cognitive Science for Ethics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Johnson, Mark (2005). “The philosophical significance of image schemas”. In: Hampe (ed.), pp. 15-33.
  • Johnson, Mark (2007). The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human Understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Johnson, Mark (2014). Morality for Humans: Ethical Understanding fromt he Perspective of Cognitive Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Johnson, Mark, and Steve Larson (2003). “’Something in the way she moves’ — metaphors of musical motion.” Metaphor and Symbol 18: 63-84.
  • Juul, Jesper (2005). Half-Real: Video Games Between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. Cambridge, Mass./London, England: MIT Press. [This monograph begins by discussing games in a general way, in the tradition of Huizinga’s homo ludens, before zooming in on video games specifically. Juul considers video games as phenomena that appear in a tensive relationship between fiction and rules. Supporting his theoretical analyses by reference to a multitude of video games, Juul makes a distinction between “emergence” and “progression” games. The former have a limited set of strict rules that, however, allow for endless variation and complexity; the latter are characterized by challenges presented serially by way of special-case rules, motivated by a story. Most traditional games (eg chess) are of the emergence type: what matters are the rules, and there is no need to somehow embed the game in a story. Many video games are of the progression variety (eg Half-Life): here there is a storyworld in which the rules are motivated by local goals, and they may vary per level. But Juul shows that matters are not simple. There are “abstract” emergence games (eg Tetris), and even though experienced players of progression game may soon forget about the story, in some cases the rules are closely related to the story motivating them (as in war games in which dimensions of landscape co-determine why certain rules are the way they are). Along the way, Juul has thus also some interesting things to say about the differences and similarities between video games and stories.]
  • Juul, Jesper (2010). A Casual Revolution: Reinventing Video Games and Their Players. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press. [Plea for re-valuation of “casual” video games (i.e., games that are easy to learn, can be played in short spurts, and do not require long, tiresome replay in case of failure). Juul also pays attention to the social aspects of multiplayer mimetic interface games. He ends his short book with some statistics on player behaviour, and interviews with players as well as game developers.]

KKK

  • Kaplan, Stuart J. (1990). “Visual metaphors in the represen­tation of communica­tion technology.” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 7: 37-47.
  • Kaplan, Stuart J. (1992). “A conceptual analysis of form and content in visual metaphors.” Communication 13: 197-209.
  • Kappelhoff, Hermann, and Cornelia Müller (2012). “Embodied meaning construction: Multimodal metaphor and expressive movement in speech, gesture, and feature film.” Metaphor and the Social World 1(2): 121-153. [A key element in this paper, which combines research into gestures and film, is the ability of multimodal metaphor to trigger affective responses in interlocutors and viewers. Furthermore the authors show (in a sense echoing Black 1979) that multimodal metaphors may create dimensions of similarity between target and source rather than tapping into pre-existent similarity.]
  • Kasapi, Eleni (2009). “Viral advertising: internet entertainment and virtual sociality.” In: Powell, Hardy, Hawkin, and MacRury (eds), pp. 119-125.
  • Katz, Albert N., and Tamsen E. Taylor (2008). The journeys of life: Examining a conceptual metaphor with semantic and episodic memory recall. Metaphor and Symbol 23: 148-173.
  • Kennedy, John. M. (1974).  A Psychology of Picture Perception. San Francisco etc.: Jossey-Bass.
  • Kennedy, John M. (1982). “Metaphor in pictures.” Perception 11: 589-605.
  • Kennedy, John M. (1993). Drawing & the Blind: Pictures to Touch. New Haven/ London: Yale University Press.
  • Kennedy, John M., Christopher D. Green, and John Vervaeke (1993). “Metaphoric thought and devices in pictures.” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 8: 243-255.
  • Kennedy, John M., and Victor Kennedy (eds.) (1993). Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 8 [special issue on metaphor and visual rhetoric].
  • Kimmel, Michael (2005). “Culture regained: Situated and compound image schemas”. In: Hampe (ed.), pp. 285-311.
  • Kjeldsen, Jens E. (2007). “Visual argumentation in Scandinavian political advertising: a cognitive, contextual, and reception oriented approach.” Argumentation and Advocacy 43: 124-132.
  • Knieper, Thomas, and Marion G. Müller, eds (2003). Authentizität und Inszenierung von Bilderwelten. Cologne: Herbert von Halem.
  • Knop, Sabine de, René Dirven, Ning Yu, and Birgit Smieja, eds (2005). Bibliography of Metaphor and Metonymy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Available electronically only at: http://www.benjamins.com/online/met
  • Knowlton, Steven A. (2013). “Evocation and figurative thought in Tennessee flag culture.” Raven 20: 23-54. [The Tennessee flag consists of three white stars on a blue background, this later encircled by a white band. The circle itself appears on a red background. At the right end, there is a vertical white band and a broader blue one. After explaining the historical context of the birth of the flag, the author shows that many local flags (i.e., flags pertaining to regions and organisations within Tennessee) have selected an “outtake” of the flag, namely the constellation of the three white stars. He discusses this in terms of the synecdoche variety of visual metonymy: “the central emblem represents theentire flag, and the viewer of the three-star emblem associates it with whatever meanings he or she ascribes to the flag” (40). Clearly, this visual metonymy works only in communities that are highly familiar with the Tennessee flag, since the three-star constellation also appears elsewhere (Knowlton mentions among others the Philippines, and the District of Columbia, Vojvodina in Serbia).
  • Koestler, Arthur (1969 [1964]). The Act of Creation. London: Hutchinson.
  • Koetsier, Julius, and Charles Forceville (2014). “Embodied identity in werewolf films of the 1980s.” Image [&] Narrative 15(1): 44-55. (Special issue “The Moving Image and the Embodied Mind”; guest editors: Maarten Coegnarts & Peter Kravanja).
  • Kogan, N., Connor, K., Gross, A., & Fava, D. (1980). Understanding Visual Metaphor: Developmental and Individual Differences. (Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. Serial no. 183, 45, 1).
  • Koller, Veronika (2005). “Designing cognition: Visual metaphor as a design feature in business magazines.” Information Design Journal and Document Design 13(2): 136-50.
  • Koller, Veronika (2009). “Brand images: Multimodal metaphor in corporate branding messages.” In: Forceville and Urios-Aparisi (eds), pp. 45-71.
  • Kövecses, Zoltán (1986). Metaphors of Anger, Pride and Love. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Kövecses, Zoltán (2000). Metaphor and Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kövecses, Zoltán (2005). Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kövecses, Zoltán (2008). “Metaphor and emotion. ” In: Gibbs (ed.), pp. 380-396.
  • Kövecses, Zoltán (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Kozloff, Sarah (1988). Invisible Storytellers: Voice-Over Narration in American Fiction Film. Berkeley­/Los Angeles/ London: University of California Press.
  • Kozloff, Sarah (2000). Overhearing Film Dialogue. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.
  • Kraljevic, Blanca, and Laura Hidalgo (2009). “Life is not just a journey but a cyberspace journey. A multimodal approach to verbal and pictorial metaphor in a corpus of  ICT advertising discourse.” Paper presented at 27th AESLA International Conference, University of Ciudad Real, Spain, 26-28 March.
  • Kress, Gunther (2009). “What is mode?” In: Jewitt (ed.), pp. 54-67.
  • Kress, Gunther (2010). Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Routledge.
  • Kress, Gunther, and Theo van Leeuwen (1996/2006). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.
  • Kress, Gunther, and Theo van Leeuwen (2001). Multimodal Discourse. London: Arnold.
  • Kristiansen, Gitte, Michel Achard, René Dirven, and Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, eds (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Kromhout, Roelf, and Charles Forceville (2013). “LIFE IS A JOURNEY: the source-path-goal schema in the videogames Half-Life, Heavy Rain, and Grim Fandango.” Metaphor and the Social World 3(1): 100-116.
  • Kukkonen, Karin (2009). “Stylistic devices in comics.” Paper presented at Poetics and Linguistics Association (PALA) conference, Roosevelt Academy, Middelburg, The Netherlands, 28 July-1 August.
  • Kukkonen, Karin (2013). Contemporary Comics Storytelling. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.

LLL

  • Lagerwerf, Luuk  (2007). “Irony and sarcasm in advertisements: effects of relevant inappropriateness.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1702-1721.
  • Lakoff, George (1986). “The meanings of literal.” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 1: 291-296.
  • Lakoff, George (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Cat­e­gories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff, George (1993). “The contemporary theory of metaphor.” In: Ortony (ed.), pp. 202-251.
  • Lakoff, George (2014). Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Front.Hum.Neurosci. 8:958 (pp. 1-14). doi:10.3389/fnhum. 2014.00958
  • Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
  • Lakoff, Georg, and Mark Johnson (2003). “Afterword, 2003.” In Metaphors We Live By, pp. 243-276. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff, George, and Mark Turner (1989). More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Leech, Geoffrey N. (1969). A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry. London: Longman.
  • Leech, Geoffrey N., and Michael H. Short (1981). Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose. London: Longman.
  • Lee-Wright, Peter (2010). The Documentary Handbook. London: Routledge.
  • Leeuwen, Theo van (1999). Speech, Music, Sound.Basingstoke/London: MacMillan.
  • Leeuwen, Theo van, and Carey Jewitt, eds. (2001). Handbook of Visual Analysis. London: Sage.
  • Leeuwen, Theo van (2006). “Towards a semiotics of typography.” Information Design Journal 14(2): 139–155.
  • Lefèvre, Pascal, and Jan Baetens (1993). Strips Anders Lezen. Brussels: Sherpa and BCB. [This study is also available in French.]
  • Liebert, Wolf-Andreas (2007). “Mit Bildern Wissenschaft vermitteln: Zum Handlungscharakter visueller Texte.” In: Liebert and Metten (eds.), pp. 175-192.
  • Liebert, Wolf-Andreas, and Thomas Metten, eds (2007). Mit Bilder Lügen. Cologne: Von Halem.
  • Linde, Charlotte (1993). Life Stories: The Creation of Coherence. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Lothe, Jakob (2000). Narrative in Fiction and Film. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Loven, Klarijn (2008). Watching Si Doel: Television, Language, and Cultural Identity in Contemporary Indonesia. Leiden: KITLV Press.
  • Lovink, Geert (2002). “The digital city — metaphor and community.” In: Lovink, Dark Fiber: Tracking Critical Internet Culture, pp. 42-67. Cambridge, MA & London/ England: MIT Press.
  • Ludden, Geke (2008). Sensory Incongruity and Surprise in Product Design. PhD thesis Technische Universiteit Delft, NL.

MMM

  • Maalej, Zouheir (2001). “Processing pictorial metaphor in advertising: A cross-cultural perspective.” Academic Research 1: 19-42 [Sfax, Tunisia].
  • Maalej Zouheir (2004). “Figurative language in anger expressions in Tunisian Arabic: An extended view of embodiment.” Metaphor and Symbol 19: 51-75.
  • Maalej, Zouheir (2015). “Mono-modal and multi-modal metaphors and metonymies in
    policy change: the case of the KSU2030 strategic plan.” Language Sciences 47: 1–17.
  • MacLeod, Norman (2010). “Images, totems, types and memes: perspectives on an iconological mimetics.” In: Neal Curtis (ed.), The Pictorial Turn. London: Routledge, pp. 88-111.
  • McCloud, Scott (1993). Understandin.g Comics. New York: Paradox Press
  • McCloud, Scott (2000). Reinventing Comics. New York: Paradox Press.
  • McCloud, Scott (2006). Making Comics: Storytelling Secrets of Comics, Manga and Graphic Novels. New York: Harper.
  • McFarlane, Brian (1996). Novel to Film: An Introduction to the Theory of Adaptation. Oxford: Clarendon.
  • McLuhan, Marshall (1964). “The medium is the message.” In: Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, 2nd ed., pp. 23-35. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • McNeill, David (1992). Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chica­go/­London: University of Chicago Press.
  • McNeill, David (2005). Gesture & Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • McQuarrie, Edward F., and David G. Mick (1999). “Visual rhetoric in advertising: text-interpretive, experimental, and reader-response analyses.” Journal of Consumer Research 26: 37-54.
  • McQuarrie, Edward F., and David Glen Mick (2003). “The contribution of semiotic and rhetorical perspectives to the explanation of visual persuasion in advertising. In: Scott and Batra (eds.), pp. 191–221.
  • McQuarrie, Edward F., & Barbara J. Phillips (eds) (2008). Go Figure! New Directions in Advertising Rhetoric. ME Sharpe.
  • MacRury, Iain (2010). “Advertising.” In: Daniele Albertazzi and Paul Cobley (eds), Media: An Introduction (3rd edition), pp. 258-275. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
  • Martínez Martínez , María Ángelez, Blanca Kraljevic Mujic, and Laura Hidalgo-Downing (2013). Multimodal narrativity in TV ads. In:  Barry Pennock-Speck & María M. del Saz-Rubio (eds), The Multimodal Analysuis of Television Commercials (91-111). València: PUV Universitat de València.
  • Messaris, Paul (1997). Visual Persuasion: The Role of Images in Adver­tis­ing. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage.
  • Mick, David G., and Laura G. Politi (1989). “Consumers’ inter­preta­tions of advertising imagery: a visit to the hell of connota­tion.” In: Ed Hirschman (ed.), Interpretive Consumer Research, pp. 85-96. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
  • Mitchell, W.J.T. (2005). “Offending images,” chapter 6 in What Do Pictures Want?, pp. 125-144. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Mittell, Jason (2004). Genre and Television: From Cop Shows to Cartoons in American Culture. New York: Routledge.
  • Mittelberg, Irene, and Linda R. Waugh (2009). “Metonymy first, metaphor second: a cognitive-semiotic approach to multimodal figures of thought in co-speech gesture.” In: Forceville and Urios-Aparisi (eds.), pp. 329-356.
  • Morgan, Susan E., and Tom Reichert (1999). “The message is in the metaphor: assessing the comprehension of metaphors in advertisements.” Journal of Advertising 28(4): 1-12.
  • Mulken, Margot van, Rob le Pair, and Charles Forceville (2010). “The impact of complexity on the appreciation of visual metaphor in advertising across three European countries.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 3418-3430.
  • Müller, Cornelia (2008). Metaphors Dead and Alive, Sleeping and Waking: A Dynamic View. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Müller, Cornelia, and Alan Cienki (2009).  “Words, gestures, and beyond: forms of multimodal metaphor in the use of spoken language.” In: Forceville and Urios-Aparisi (eds.), pp. 297-328.
  • Murphy, Gregory L. (1996). “On metaphoric representation.” Cognition 60: 173-204.
  • Murphy, Gregory L. (1997). “Reasons to doubt the present evidence for metaphoric representation.” Cognition 62: 99-108.
  • Murray, Janet H. (1997). Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
  • Murray, Janet (2004). From game-story to cyberdrama. In: Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Pat Harrigan (eds.), First Person: New Media as Story, Performance and Game. Cambridge: MIT Press, http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/firstperson/autodramatic.
  • Musolff, Andreas (2006). “Metaphor scenarios in public discourse.” Metaphor and Symbol 21: 23-38.
  • Musolff, Andreas (2016). Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury.
  • Myers, Kathy (1983). “Understanding advertisers.” In: Davis and Walton (eds), pp. 205-223.

NNN

  • Neale, Steve, ed. (2002). Genre and Contemporary Hollywood. London: BFI.
  • Nichols, Bill (2010). An Introduction to Documentary (revised ed.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
  • Noppen, Jean-Pierre van, Sabine de Knop, and René Jongen, eds (1985). Metaphor: A Biblio­graphy of Post-1970 Publications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Noppen, Jean-Pierre van, and Edith Hols, eds (1990). Metaphor II: A Clas­sified Bibliography of Publications From 1985-1990. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Nyíri, Kristóf (2011). Gombrich on image and time. In: Sachs-Hombach and Totzke, pp. 13-32.

OOO

  • Ortiz, María J. (2011). “Primary metaphors and monomodal visual metaphors.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 1568-1580.
  • Ortiz, María J. (2015). “Films and embodied metaphors of emotion.” In: Maarten Coëgnarts & Peter Kravanja, eds, Embodied Cognition and Cinema (203-220). Leuven: Leuven University Press.
  • Ortony, Andrew, ed. (1979). Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ortony, Andrew, ed. (1993). Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Özçalışkan, Şeyda (2003). “Metaphorical motion in crosslinguistic perspective: a comparison of English and Turkish.” Metaphor and Symbol 18: 189-229.

PPP

  • Palmer, Alan (2004). Fictional Minds. Lincoln/London: University of Nebraska Press. [This excellent book is first of all of interest for narratologists working on literary fiction. Courteously but undogmatically discussing an impressive array of narratologists’ views on the representation of characters’ thought, Palmer’s central thesis is that “narrative fiction is, in essence, the presentation of fictional mental functioning” (p. 5). Adopting a functionalist approach, he argues, however, that of the ways in which fictional characters thinking can be rendered, “free indirect thought” (e.g. “Why the hell was he still waiting for her”) has received too much narratological attention, and that this attention has been at the expense of what he calls “thought report” (e.g. “He wondered why he was still waiting for her”). Palmer persuasively claims that thought report, far more so than direct thought and free indirect thought, links characters’ thinking to their actions in the outside world. Accepting this has some consequences that are also of interest for theorists of multimodal discourse. One of these is that so-called “inner speech” is only a small part of characters’ thoughts. In fact a lot of mental activity, as presented in such expressions as “she decided/realized/felt excited/regretted/ wanted …”, is not, or not necessarily, verbal in character. Another consequence is that, contrary to the accepted narratological wisdom that no fictional character can know another’s thoughts, actually a lot of a character’s thinking can be reliably inferred both by other characters and by readers simply from that character’s actions, something the author refers to as “the mind beyond the skin.” (In fact, this is exactly what happens in wordless cartoons, comics, animations and other types of language-less narratives.) A third consequence is that thought report is a major source of information for readers to build up their understanding of a character’s personality. Palmer emphasizes this point because, he claims, “thought representation” and “characterization” in most narratological studies are discussed in different chapters, and that this unfortunate situation artificially tears apart two aspects of storytelling that are closely connected. Another relevant point Palmer makes is that thought report can convey easily not only individuals’, but also groups’ thinking (so-called “intermental thought”), which is a strong tool in the hands of a narrator. Palmer give the following example from Evelyn Waugh’s Vile Bodies: “The real aristocracy … had done nothing about [coming in fancy dress.] They had come come on from a dance and stood in a little group by themselves, aloof, amused but not amusing,” where the group is richly and harshly characterized in just the last four words (p. 229).]
  • Pápay, Gyula (2005). “Die Beziehung von Karthographie, allgemeiner Bildwissenschaft und Semiotik.” In: Sachs-Hombach, K. (ed.), pp. 86-100.
  • Pateman, Trevor (1983). “How is understanding an advertisement possible?” In: Howard Davis and Paul Walton (eds.), Language, Image, Media. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 187-204.
  • Peeters, Benoît (1998). Case, Planche, Récit: Lire la Bande Dessineé. Tournai: Casterman.
  • Pérez-Hernández, Lorena (2013). “Approaching the utopia of a global brand: The relevance of image schemas as multimodal resources for the branding industry.” Review of Cognitive Linguistics 11: 285-302.
  • Persson, Per (2003). Understanding Cinema: A Psychological Theory of Moving Imagery. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
  • Petterson, Bo (2011). “Literary criticism writes back to metaphor thoery: exploring the relation between extended metaphor and narrative in literature.” In: Fludernik (ed.), pp. 94-112.
  • Phillips, Barbara J. (2003). “Understanding visual metaphor.” In: Scott and Batra (eds), pp. 297-310.
  • Pilkington, Adrian (2000). Poetic Effects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Pilling, Jayne (ed.) (1997). A Reader in Animation. London: John Libbey.
  • Pinar Sanz, Maria Jesus, ed. (2013). The Review of Cognitive Linguistics 11(2), special issue on multimodality and cognitive linguistics.
  • Plantinga, Carl R. (1997). Rhetoric and Representation in Nonfiction Film. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Plantinga, Carl R. (2009). Moving Viewers: American Film and the Specator’s Experience. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Plantinga, Carl, and Greg M. Smith, eds (1999). Passionate Views: Film, Cognition, and Emotion. Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Plümacher, Martina (2005). “Bildtypologie als Grundlage der Bildwissenschaft.” In: Sachs-Hombach (ed.), pp. 132-143.
  • Plümacher, Martina, and Peter Holz, eds (2007). Speaking of Colors and Odors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Ponech, Trevor (1999). What is Non-Fiction Cinema?: On the Very Idea of Motion Picture Communication. Boulder, CO/Oxford: Westview Press.
  • Powell, Helen (2009). “Celebrity.” In: Powell, Hardy, Hawkin, and MacRury (eds), 99-108.
  • Powell, Helen, Jonathan Hardy, Sarah Hawkin, and Iain MacRury, eds (2009). The Advertising Handbook (3rd edition). London: Routledge.
  • Propp, Victor (1968). Morphology of the Folktale (2nd ed., revised and edited with a preface by L.A. Wagner). Translated by L. Scott. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.

QQQ

RRR

  • Ramachandran, Vilayanur S., and William Hirstein (1999). “The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 6 (6-7): 15-51.
  • Reddy, Michael J. (1979). “The conduit metaphor: a case of frame conflict in our language about language. In: Ortony (ed.), pp. 284-324.
  • Renov, Michael, ed. (1993). Theorizing Documentary. New York: Routledge.
  • Rewiś-Łętkowska, Anna (2015). “Multimodal  representations of fear metaphors in television commercials.” In: Dorota Brzozowska and Władysław Chłopicki (eds), Culture’s Software: Communication Styles. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 381-404).
  • Richards, Ivor Armstrong (1965 [1936]). The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Ricoeur, Paul (1977). The Rule of Metaphor (trans. R. Czerny et al.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  • Ritchie, David L. (2008). “X is a journey: Embodied simulation in metaphor interpretation.” Metaphor and Symbol 23: 174-199.
  • Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith (1983). Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poet­ics. London: Methuen.
  • Rocci, Andrea, Sabina Mazzali-Lurati, and Chiara Pollaroli (2013). “Is this the Italy we like?: Multimodal argumentation in a Fiat Panda TV commercial.” In: Barry Pennock-Speck and Maria Milagros del Saz Rubio (eds), The Multimodal Analysis of Television Commercials (pp. 43-60). Valencia: Publicacions de la Universitat de València.
  • Rohdin, Mats (2003). “Summary in English.” In Vildsvinet I filmens trädgård: Metaforbegreppet inom filmteorin [“The wild boar in the garden of film: The concept of metaphor in film theory”], pp. 318-329. Unpublished PhD dissertation,  Stockholm: Edita Norstedts Tryckeri AB.
  • Rohrer, Tim (2000). “Metaphors: visual blends and the ideology of information technology.” Hermes 24: 131-159.
  • Rompay, Thomas van (2005). Expressions: Embodiment in the Experience of Design. Unpublished PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Delft, NL.
  • Roscoe, Jane, and Craig Hight (2000). Faking it: Mock-Documentary and the Subversion of Factuality. Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press. [see BA thesis Jason Britton, UvA 2010, in Dutch.]
  • Rothenberg, Albert (2008). “Rembrandt’s creation of the pictorial metaphor of self.” Metaphor and Symbol 23: 108-129.
  • Rothenberg, Albert (2015). The Flight from Wonder: An Investigation of Scientific Creativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Royce, Terry, and Wendy L. Bowcher, eds. (2007). New Directions in the Analysis of Multimodal Discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Rozik, Eli (1994). “Pictorial metaphor.” Kodikas/Code 17: 203-218.
  • Rozik, Eli (1998). “Ellipsis and the surface structures of verbal and nonverbal metaphor.” Semiotica: 77-103.
  • Ryan, Marie-Laure, ed. (2004). Narrative Across Media. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

SSS

  • Sachs-Hombach, Klaus, ed. (2005). Bildwissenschaft: Zwischen Reflexion und Anwendung. Cologne: Von Halem.
  • Sachs-Hombach, Klaus (2005). “Das Bild in der Spannung von perzeptuellen und semiotischen Determinanten.” In: Sachs-Hombach, K. (ed.), pp. 163-176.
  • Sachs-Hombach, Klaus (2006). Das Bild als kommunikatives Medium: Elemente einer allgemeinen Bildwissenschaft. Cologne: Halem.
  • Sachs-Hombach, Klaus (2006). Das Bild als kommunikatives Medium: Elemente einer allgemeinen Bildwissenschaft. Cologne: Von Halem.
  • Sachs-Hombach, Klaus, and Rainer Totzke, eds (2011). Bilder-Sehen-Denken: Zum Verhältnis von begrifflich-philosophischen und empirisch-psychologischen Ansätzen in der bildwissenschaftlichen Forschung. Cologne: Von Halem.
  • Saraceni, Mario (2003). The Language of Comics. London: Routledge.
  • Scannell, Paddy (1996). Radio, Television & Modern Life: A Phenomenological Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Schank, Roger C., and Robert P. Abelson (1975). “Scripts, plans, and knowledge.” IJCAI’75 Proceedings of the 4th international joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1, 151-157. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
  • Schilperoord, Joost, and Alfons Maes (2009). “Visual metaphoric conceptualization in editorial cartoons.” In: Forceville and Urios-Aparisi (eds), pp. 213-240.
  • Schilperoord, Joost, Alfons Maes, and Heleen Ferdinandusse (2010). “Perceptual and conceptual visual rhetoric: the case of symmetric object alignment.” Metaphor and Symbol  24: 155-173.
  • Schmauks, Dagmar (2005). “Bilder im Kontext von Rätsel und Spiel.” In: Sachs-Hombach, K. (ed.), pp. 342-356.
  • Schmauks, Dagmar (2011). “Denken und sein Misslingen in Redewendungen und Cartoons.” In: Sachs-Hombach and Totzke, pp. 402-427.
  • Schmidt, Siegfried J. (1991). “Literary systems as self-organizing systems.” In: Elrud Ibsch, Dick Schram, and Gerard Steen (eds), Empirical Studies of Literature, pp. 413-24. Amsterdam/Atlanta GA: Rodopi.
  • Schnotz, Wolfgang, Christiane Baadte, Andreas Müller, and Renate Rasch (2011). “Kreatives Denken un Problemlösen mit bildlichen und beschreibenden Repräsentationen.” In: Sachs-Hombach and Totzke (eds), pp. 204-252.
  • Scholz, Bernard F. (1994). “Der Mensch — eine Proportionsfigur: Leonardo da Vincis Illustration zu Vitruvs De Architectura als Bildtopos.” Zeitschrift für Semiotik 16: 255-295.
  • Scholz, M. (2005). “Kommunikationsdesign – Methoden und Ergebnisse der bildschaffenden Forschung.” In: Sachs-Hombach, K. (ed.), pp. 413-426.
  • Schwan, Stefan (2005). “Film verstehen – Eine kognitionspsychologische Perspektive.” In: Sachs-Hombach, K. (ed.), pp. 457-467.
  • Scott, Biljana (2004). “Picturing irony: The subversive power of photography.” Visual Communication 3(1): 31–59.
  • Scott, Linda M., and Rajeev Batra, eds (2003). Persuasive Imagery: A Consumer Response Perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Sedivy, Sonia (1997). “Metaphoric pictures, pulsars, platypuses.” Metaphor and Symbol 12: 95-112.
  • Semino, Elena, and Jonathan V. Culpeper, eds (2002), Cognitive Stylistics: Language and Cognition in Text Analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Seymour-Ure, Colin (1986). “Drawn and quartered: The election in cartoons.” In: I. Crewe and M. Haroop (eds), Political Communications: The General Election Campaign of 1983, pp. 160-176. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Shen, Yeshayahu (1995). “Cognitive constraints on directionality in the semantic structure of poetic vs. non-poetic metaphors.” Poetics 23: 255–274.
  • Shibles, Warren A. (1971). Metaphor: An Annotated Bibliography and History. Whitewater, WI: The Language Press.
  • Shimamura, Arthur P., ed. (2013). Psychocinematics: Exploring Cognition at the Movies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Shinohara, Kazuko, and Yoshihiro Matsunaka (2003). “An analysis of Japanese emotion metaphors.” Kotoba to Ningen: Journal of Yokohama Linguistic Circle 4: 1-18.
  • Shinohara, Kazuko, and Yoshihiro Matsunaka (2009). “Pictorial metaphors of emotion in Japanese comics.” In Forceville and Urios-Aparisi (eds.), pp. 265-293.
  • Shore, Bradd (1996). Culture in Mind: Cognition, Culture, and the Problem of Meaning. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Simons, Jan (1995). Film, Language, and Conceptual Structures: Thinking Film in the Age of Cognitivism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, NL.
  • Simpson, Paul (1993). Language, Ideology and Point of View. London/New York: Rout­ledge.
  • Smith, Brett and A.C. Sparkes (2004). “Men, sport, and spinal cord injury: An analysis of metaphors and narrative types.” Disability & Society 19: 599-612.
  • Smith, Ken (1996). “Laughing at the way we see: The role of visual organizing principles in cartoon humor.” Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 9: 19–38.
  • Smith, Matthew J., and Randy Duncan, eds (2012). Critical Approaches to Comics: Theories and Methods. New York: Routledge. [For the young discipline of comics studies this is a valuable collection: while enthusiasm for a medium (typically: of the fan-type) is usually an excellent starting point for serious research, scholarship requires systematicity and accountability. The 21 chapters that follow an introduction by Henry Jenkins all have roughly the same structure, always including the sections “underlying assumptions,” “artifact selected for sample analysis,” and “sample analysis.” Authors thus need to put their theoretical and/or ideological cards on the table and then show what, and how, they are going to use these to say something pertinent about the comics of their choice. Sure, the degree to which each of the “theories and methods” is actually applicable to new specimens (the litmus test for their usefulness) differs; and yes, sometimes the status of a “theory/method” is questionable (does “intertextuality” qualify? “philosophy?”). But undoubtedly the book offers an exciting overview of approaches, which, also thanks to the bibliography following each chapter, is a treasure trove for each aspiring comics scholar. The volume moreover is not restricted to textual analyses, but also covers pragmatic factors relating to the production and reception of comics. Approaches include the following: wordless comics (Beronä, on Kuper’s The System), comics modes (Witek, on Crumb’s Dirty Laundry), the role of shape and colour (Duncan, on Mazzuchelli’s Asterios Polyp), time and narrative (Singer, on Morrison’s The Invisibles), mise en scène and framing (Lefèvre, on Okami’s Lone Wolf and Club),  sequential dynamism and iconostasis (Molotiu, in abstract comics and Ditko’s Spiderman), philosophy (McLaughlin, on Claremon and Byrne’s X-Men), comics journalism (Nyberg, on Sacco’s Safe Area Gorazde), propaganda (Murray, on Simon & Kirby’s Captain America), political economy (Rogers, on Jurgens’ “The death of Superman”), commodification (Gordon, on “Superman: return to Krypton”), ethnography of production (Carpenter, on editor Alex Alonso), auteur criticism (Smith, on Alan Moore), history (Ricca, on Siegel & Shuster), genre (Coogan, on All-Star Superman),  ideology (Rifas, on Tintin in the Congo), feminism (Stuller, on Lois Lane), intertextuality (Merino, on Max’s Bardín), cultural studies (Gibson, on British girls’ comics), ethnography (Brown, on fans wearing clothes referencing their (super)hero(in)es), and critical ethnography (Swafford, on the importance of the comics shop as “cultural clubhouse”). For me personally the most unexpectedly insightful chapter was Andrei Molotui’s chapter, while I was relieved to find Jennifer Stuller’s guidelines for a feminist angle on comics (but extendable to other media) attractively down-to-earth and doable.]
  • Smith, Murray (1994). “Altered states: character and emotional response in the cinema.” Cinema Journal 33(4): 34-56.
  • Smith, Murray (1995). Engaging Characters: Fiction, Emotion, and the Cinema. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Sobrino, Paula P. (2013, February 2). “Multimodal complex cognitive operations at work in greenwashing advertisements.” Presentation at Adventures in Multimodality meeting, University of Amsterdam, Dept. of Media Studies;  https://muldisc.wordpress.com/category/abstracts-and-presentation-slides/

  • Soria, Belén, and Esther Romero, eds (2010). Explicit Communication: Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson (1995 [1986]). Relevance Theory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Spitzer, Mark (2004). Metaphor and Musical Thought. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
  • Steen, Gerard J. (1994). Understanding Metaphor in Litera­ture: An Empirical Approach. London: Longman.
  • Sternberg, Meir (1978). Expositional Modes and Temporal Or­dering in Fiction. Bal­timore/Lon­don: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Stockwell, Peter J. (1999). “The inflexibility of invariance.” Language & Literature 8: 125–142.
  • Sweetser, Eve E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

TTT

  • Taleb, Nassim Nicholas (2010 [2007]). The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable (2nd ed.). London: Penguin.
  • Tan, Ed S. (1996). Emotion and the Structure of Narrative Film. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Tan, Ed S. (2001). “The telling face in comic strip and graphic novel.” In: Baetens(ed.), pp. 31-46.
  • Tendahl, Markus, and Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr (2008). “Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1823-1864.
  • Teng, Norman Y. (2009). “Image alignment in multimodal metaphor.” In: Forceville and Urios-Aparisi (eds), pp. 197-211.
  • Teng, Norman Y., and Sewen Sun (2002). “Grouping, simile, and oxymoron in pictures: a design-based cognitive approach.” Metaphor and Symbol 17: 295-316.
  • Thorau, Christian (2003). Metapher und Variation: Referenztheoretische Grundlagen musikalischer Metaphorizität. Zeitschrift für Semiotik 25(1/2): 109-124.
  • Tillyard, E.M.W. (1976 [1943]). The Elizabethan World Picture. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
  • Tomasello, Michael (1999). The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge MA/ London, England: Harvard University Press.
  • — (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA/ London, England: Harvard University Press.
  • — (2008). Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge Mass./London England: MIT Press (Bradford book).
  • Toolan, Michael J. (1988). Narrative: A Critical Linguistic Intro­duc­tion. London: Routledge.
  • Toolan, Michael (2009), Narrative Progression in the Short Story: A Corpus Stylistic Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Tseng, Chio-i (2013). Cohesion in Film: Tracking Film Elements. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Tseronis, Assimakis (submitted). “Argumentative functions of visuals: beyond claiming and justifying.” [Abstract: “Up until now, the study of the argumentative role of visuals has been restricted to the formal concept of argument as product, consisting of premises and conclusion. In this paper, I adopt the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation as a social and discursive activity in order to explore argumentative functions of visuals that go beyond claiming and justifying. To do this I pay attention to the visual form and to the interaction between the verbal and the visual mode in argumentative discourse.”]
  • Tseronis, A., Charles Forceville, C., and Grannetia, M. (2015). “The argumentative role of visual metaphor and visual antithesis in ‘fly-on-the-wall’ documentary.” In: Garssen, B., Godden, D., Mitchell, G. and Snoeck Henkemans, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Argumentation (pp. 1380-1395). Amsterdam: SicSat, CD-Rom.
  • Tseronis, Assimakis, and Charles Forceville, eds, forthc.. Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Turim, Maureen (1989). Flashbacks in Film. London/New York: Routledge.
  • Turner, Mark (1991). Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton NJ: Princeton UP.
  • Turner, Mark (1996). The Literary Mind. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Turner, Mark and Gilles Fauconnier (1995). “Conceptual integration and formal expression.” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10: 183-204.
  • Tversky, Barbara (2001). “Spatial schemas in depictions.” In: Merideth Gattis (ed.), Spatial Schemas and Abstract Thought, 79-112. Cambridge MA: MIT press/Bradford book.
  • Tversky, Barbara, Maneesh Agrawala, Julie Heiser, Paul U. Lee, Pat Hanrahan, Doantam Phan, Chris Stolte, and Marie-Paule Daniel (2006). “Cognitive design principles: from cognitive models to computer models.” In: Lorenzo Magnani (ed.), Model-Based Reasoning in Science and Engineering: Cognitive Science, Epistemology, Logic (53-73). London: College Publications.

UUU

  • Umiker-Sebeok, Jean, ed. (1987). Marketing and Semiotics: New Directions in the Study of Signs for Sale. Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter,
  • Unsworth, L., and Clérigh, C. (2009). “Multimodality and reading: the construction of meaning through image-text interaction.” In: Jewitt (ed.), pp. 151-63.
  • Urios-Aparisi, Eduardo (2009). “Interaction of multimodal metaphor and metonymy in TV commercials: four case studies.” In: Forceville and Urios-Aparisi (eds), pp. 95-117.
  • Urios-Aparisi, Eduardo (2010). “The body of love in Almodóvar’s cinema: metaphor and metonymy of the body and body parts.” Metaphor and Symbol 25: 181-203.

VVV

  • Veale, Tony (2012). Exploding the Creativity Myth: The Computational Foundations of Linguistic Creativity.  London: Bloomsbury.
  • Veale, Tony (2014). “Coming good and breaking bad: Generating transformative character arcs for use in compelling stories.” Proceedings of ICCC-2014, the 5th International Conference on Computational Creativity, Ljubljana, Slovenia, June 2014 (8 pp.). Downloaded from: http://afflatus.ucd.ie/
  • Veale, Tony, Kurt Feyaerts, and Charles Forceville, eds. (2013). Creativity and the Agile Mind: A Multi-Disciplinary Exploration of a Multi-Faceted Phenomenon. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Veale, Tony, Kurt Feyaerts, and Charles Forceville (2013). “E Unis Pluribum: Using mental agility to achieve creative duality in word, image and sound.” In: Tony Veale, Kurt Feyaerts, and Charles Forceville (eds), Creativity and the Agile Mind: A Multi-Disciplinary Exploration of a Multi-Faceted Phenomenon (37-57). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Veale, Tony, Kurt Feyaerts, and Charles Forceville (2013.). “Hiding in plain sight: the art of creative duality in words and images.” In Veale et al. (2013)
  • Ventola, Eija, Cassily Charles, and Martin Kaltenbacher, eds (2004). Perspectives on Multimodality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Ventola, Eija, and Arsenio Jésus Moya Guijarro (eds) (2009). The World Told and the World Shown: Issues in Multisemiotics. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
  • Visch, Valentijn (2007). Looking for Genres: The Effect of Film Figure Movement on Genre Recognition. PhD dissertation, Faculty of Arts, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
  • Volpers, Helmut, and Bernd Holznagel (2009). Trennung von Werbung und Programm im Fernsehen: Zuschauerwahrnehmungen und Regulierungsoptionen. Hamburg/Schleswig Holstein: Vistas.

WWW

  • Waal, Frans de (2009).  The Age of Empathy: Nature’s Lessons for a Kinder Society.  New York: Harmony.
  • Walker, Mort (2000 [1980]). The Lexicon of Comicana. Lincoln NE: Authors Guild Backinprint.com Edition (first published by Museum of Cartoon Art).
  • Ward, Paul (2005). Documentary: The Margins of Reality. London: Wallflower. [This short (about 100 pp.) introduction zooms in on a few pertinent issues rather than covering the whole field. The book adopts the sensible idea that what counts as “documentary” film resides not in its techniques but in its purposes. Ward has good chapters on the vexed notion of “enactment,” whose use he eloquently defends; on the role of humour in documentary; and on the great opportunities that animations have to offer to non-fiction film.]
  • Wells, Paul (1998). Understanding Animation. London/New York: Routledge. [A new edition of this book was scheduled to appear in July 2011.]
  • Westendorp, Piet (2002). Presentation Media for Product Interaction. Unpubl. PhD. TU Delft, NL.
  • Wharton, Tim (2009).  Pragmatics and Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [This Relevance Theory-inspired monograph focuses on what are sometimes called paralinguistic features, such as gestures, prosody, and interjections. I am happy that the author considers verbal communication a subdomain of Ostensive Communication in general.]
  • Whittock, Trevor (1990). Metaphor and Film. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wiesing, Lambert (2005). “Methoden der Bildwissenschaft. In: Sachs-Hombach (ed.), pp. 144-154.
  • Wiggin, Amy A., and Christine M. Miller (2003). “’Uncle Sam wants you!’ Exploring verbal-visual juxtapositions in television advertising.” In: Scott and Batra (eds.), pp. 267–295.
  • Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber (2004). Relevance Theory. In: Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 607-32. Malden MA: Blackwell.
  • Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber (2012). Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [This volume collects mostly papers that the mum and dad of Relevance Theory published, together and with various co-authors, in journals and edited books. But it is very useful to have all this work, which contains refinements, expansions, empirical testing, as well as responses to critics re RT, brought together in one state of the art volume. The link with evolutionary approaches, implicit in their  first book, is now elaborated on. Indispensable for RT scholars and anybody who cares for  theorizing (verbal) communication.]
  • Winston, Brian (1995), Claiming the Real: The Griersonian Documentary and its Legitimations. London: BFI.
  • Winston, Brian (2000). Lies, Damn Lies and Documentaries. London: BFI.
  • Winter, Bodo (2014). “Horror movies and the cognitive ecology of primary metaphors.”  Metaphor and Symbol 29(3): 151-170.
  • Wollheim, Richard (1993). “Metaphor and painting.” In: Ankersmit and Mooij (eds),  pp.

XXX

YYY

  • Yu, Ning (1995). “Metaphorical expressions of anger and happiness in English and Chinese.” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10: 59-92.
  • Yu, Ning (1998). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Yu, Ning (2001). “What does our face mean to us?” Pragmatics and Cognition 9: 1-36.
  • Yu, Ning (2003). “The bodily dimension of meaning in Chinese: what do we do and mean with ‘hands.’” In: Eugene H. Casad and Gerry B. Palmer (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and Non-Indo-European Languages, pp.337–62. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Yu, Ning (2009). “Nonverbal and multimodal manifestations of metaphors and metonymies: A case study.” In: Forceville and Urios-Aparisi (eds), pp. 119-143.
  • Yus, Francisco (1998). “A decade of relevance theory.” Journal of Pragmatics 30: 305-345.
  • Yus, Francisco (2008). “Inferring from comics: A multi-stage account.” In: Pelegrí Sancho Cremades, Carmen Gregori Signes, and Santiago Renard (eds). El Discurs del Comic. Valencia: University of Valencia, pp. 223-249.
  • Yus, Francisco (2009). “Visual metaphor versus verbal metaphor: A unified account.” In: Forceville and Urios-Aparisi (eds), pp. 147-172.
  • Yus, Francisco (2011). Cyberpragmatics: Internet-mediated Communication in Context. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [A pioneering mononograph demonstrating how Relevance Theory can be applied to chats, tweets, e-mails and blogs. The book also contains a chapter on (im)politeness on Internet].
  • Yus, Francisco (2014). “Not all emoticons are created equal.” Linguagem em (Dis)curso 14(3): 511-529.
  • Yus, Francisco (2016). Humour and Relevance. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

ZZZ

  • Zbikowski, Lawrence M. (2009). “Music, language, and multimodal metaphor.” In: Forceville and Urios-Aparisi (eds), pp. 359-381.
  • Zlatev, Jordan (2005). “What’s in a schema? Bodily mimesis and the grounding of language”. In: Hampe (ed.), pp. 313-343.
  • Zlatev, Jordan, Johan Blomberg, and Ulf Magnusson (2012). “Metaphors and subjective experience: A study of motion-emotion metaphors in Ebglish, Swedish, Bulgarian, and Thai.” In: Ad Foolen, Ulrike M. Lüdtke, Timothy P. Racine, and Jordan Zlateve, eds, Moving Ourselves, Moving Others: Motion and Emotion in Intersubjectivity, Consciousness and Language (423-450). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [Comparative study across English, Swedish, Bulgarian, and Thai of EMOTION IS MOTION metaphor. Conclusion: “The study of motion-emotion metaphors in four differentially related languages (and culutures) here described gives support for a view according to which personal, subjective experience and language (use) closely interact in the formation of metaphorical expressions used to talk about, and at least to some extent about, emotions. In brief, this position implies a scenario on the ‘evolution’ of emotion metaphors such as the following./People can and do experience emotions (or feelings) of various sorts even independently of language, but to be able to talk about them, thee less ‘ tangible’  experiences must be expressed by words whose meaning is public. The most natural way to do so is to use expressions which refer to publically observable phenomena, but which are in some ways either similar to (analogy, iconicity) or spatiotemporally releated to (contiguity, indexicality) the subjective experiences. Expressions denoting motion situations are convenient for this purpose for two reasons, corresponding to the to kinds of motivation. First, due to their dynamic character, motion situations may be found to be (phenomenologically) similar to emotiions (i.e. changes in affective consciousness). Second, due to the close association between feelings and co-occurring bodily processes and sensations, the latter become “metonymic” or “indexical” of the first. Hence, in historical time some speakers could creatively use expressions referreing to such analogous or contiguous (motion) events in the ‘external world’ in order to describe their ‘inner worlds’, and hearers could understand them, due to the motivated nature of the expressions. With cultural transmission, both within and between gnerations, such expressions become conventional (though still motivated) and thus convenient language-specific and culture-specific ‘moulds’ for construing emotional experience'” (p. 447).]
  • Zwaan, Rolf A. (1993). Aspects of Literary Comprehension: A Cognitive Approach. Amster­dam: John Benjamins.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s