EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 78 (2020) SHS Web Conf., 78 (2020) 12002 References
Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 78, 2020
7e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
Article Number 12002
Number of page(s) 13
Section Sémantique
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20207812002
Published online 04 September 2020
  1. Anscombre, J.-C., (2001). Dénomination, sens et référence dans une théorie des stéréotypes nominaux. Cahiers depraxématique, 36, 43-72. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Anscombre J.-C., (2012). Le problème de l’antonymie dans le champ parémique. In J.-C. Anscombre, A., Rodriguez Somolinos, S., Jordana- Gômez Ferary (éds), Voix et marqueurs du discours: des connecteurs à l’argument d’autorité. Lyon: ENS Editions, 121-140. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Anscombre J.-C., (2016). Sur la détermination du sens des proverbes. Etudes et travaux d’Eur’ORBEM, 1, 39-53. [Google Scholar]
  4. Fauconnier, G. & Lakoff, G. (2009). On metaphor and blending. Cognitive Semiotics, 5, 393-399. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1996). Blending as a central process of grammar. In A. Goldberg (éd.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 113-130. [Google Scholar]
  6. Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22, 33-187. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2000). Compression and global insight. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 283304. [Google Scholar]
  8. Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think. New York: Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
  9. Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2003). Polysemy and conceptual blending. In B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, V. Herman, D. Clarke (éds.), Polysemy: Patterns of meaning in mind and language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 79-94. [Google Scholar]
  10. Fradin, B. (1984). Anaphorisation et stéréotypes nominaux. Lingua, 64, 325-369. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (1973). Toward a theory of proverb meaning. Proverbium, 22, 821-827. [Google Scholar]
  12. Kovecses, Z. (1986). Metaphors of anger, pride, and love: A lexical approach to the structure of concepts. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kovecses, Z. (1988). The language of love: the semantics of passion in conversational English. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press. [Google Scholar]
  14. Kovecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Kovecses, Z. (2011). Recent developments in metaphor theory: Are the new views rival ones? Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 11-25. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (éd.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press, 202-251. [Google Scholar]
  17. Lakoff, G. (2008). The neural theory of metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs (éd.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, 17-38. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press. [Google Scholar]
  19. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lemghari, E. (2017). Conceptual metaphors as motivation for proverbs lexical polysemy. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3, 57-70. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Lemghari, E. Metaphorical blending in complex proverbs. A case study. Metaphor and the Social World (sous presse). [Google Scholar]
  23. Milner, G. B. (1969). De l’armature des locutions proverbiales. Essai de taxonomie sémantique. L’Homme, 9(3), 49-70. [Google Scholar]
  24. Putnam, H. (1975). Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.