Cognition

doi:10.1017/9781108863957.017

17 - Cognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 June 2021

Peter Richardson

Edited by

Stephen Pihlaja

Show author details

Stephen Pihlaja: Affiliation:
Newman University

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Outlines the broad field of cognition, focusing on several key concepts driving research in the study of language in the mind: conceptual metaphor, metonymy, blending, and force-dynamics.

Keywords

cognition metaphor cognitive linguistics conceptual metaphor religion language belief blending force-dynamics

Type: Chapter
Information: Analysing Religious Discourse , pp. 292 - 310

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108863957.017 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

Access options

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

References

17.5 References

Antović, M. (2018). Waging war against oneself: A conceptual blend at the heart of Christian ascetic practice. In Chilton, P. & Kopytowska, M. (eds.), Religion, Language, and the Human Mind (pp. 386–406). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Biernacka, E. (2013). The role of metonymy in political discourse. Unpublished PhD thesis, Milton Keynes: The Open University.Google Scholar

Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Charteris-Black, J. (2017). Fire Metaphors: Discourses of Awe and Authority. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Chilton, P. (2018). Hoc est corpus: Deixis and the integration of ritual space. In Chilton, P. & Kopytowska, M. (eds.), Religion, Language, and the Human Mind (pp. 407–36). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Fillmore, C. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistics Society of Korea (eds.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111–37). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.Google Scholar

Gibbs, Jr., R. W., & Santa Cruz, M. J. (2012). Temporal unfolding of conceptual metaphoric experience. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(4), 299–311.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the organization of experience. London: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Hart, C. (2015). Cognitive linguistics and critical discourse analysis. In Dabrowska, E. & Divjak, D. (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Howe, B., & Green, J. B. (eds.). (2014). Cognitive Linguistic Explorations in Biblical Studies. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Kowalewski, H. (2018). Snakes, leaves, and poisoned arrows: Metaphors of emotion in early Buddhism. In Chilton, P. & Kopytowska, M. (eds.), Religion, Language, and the Human Mind (pp. 210–28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kövecses, Z. (2011). The biblical story retold: A cognitive linguistic perspective. In Brdar, M., Gries, S. T. & Fuchs, M. Z. (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and Expansion (pp. 325–53). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thought, and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Philips, F. (2019). Meet the evangelists saving souls in Wall Street. Catholic Herald. https://catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2019/05/13/meet-the-evangelists-saving-souls-in-wall-street/.Google Scholar

Pihlaja, S. (2018). Religious Talk Online: The Evangelical Discourse of Muslims, Christians, and Atheists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39.Google Scholar

Richardson, P. & Mueller, C. (2019). Moving yet being still: Exploring source domain reversal and force in explanations of enlightenment. Language and Cognition, 11, 310–39.Google Scholar

Richardson, P., & Nagashima, M. (2018). Perceptions of danger and co-occurring metaphors in Buddhist dhamma talks and Christian sermons. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 5(1), 133–54.Google Scholar

Silvestre-López, A. J. (2016). The discourse of mindfulness: What language reveals about the mindfulness experience. In Ordóñez-López, P. & Edo-Marzá, N. (eds.), New Insights into the Analysis of Medical Discourse in Professional, Academic and popular Settings (pp. 173–98). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Van Wolde, E. (2014). Cognitive grammar at work in Sodom and Gomorrah. In Howe, B., & Green, J. B. (eds.), Cognitive Linguistic Explorations in Biblical Studies (pp. 193–223). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Wilson, J. (2009). Buddhism of the Heart: Reflections on Shin Buddhism and Inner Togetherness. Somerville: Wisdom Publications.Google Scholar

Zaimov, S. (2016). Theologian Norman Geisler explains how America abandoned God, and what it can do to reclaim His favor. www.christianpost.com/news/theologian-norman-geisler-explains-how-america-abandoned-god-what-it-can-do-reclaim-his-favor.html, www.christianpost.com/news/theologian-norman-geisler-explains-how-america-abandoned-god-what-it-can-do-reclaim-his-favor.html.Google Scholar