[
Abram, D. (1996). The spell of the sensuous: Perception and language in a morethan-human world. New York: Vintage.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bierwiaczonek, B. (2013). Metonymy in language, thought and brain. Sheffield: Equinox.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Blomberg, J., & Zlatev, J. (2021). Metalinguistic relativity: Does one’s ontology determine one’s view on linguistic relativity? Language & Communication, 76, 35–46.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Brandt, L. (2013). The communicative mind: A linguistic exploration of conceptual integration and meaning construction. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. (2022). Metonymy in multimodal discourse, or how metonymies get piggybacked across modalities by other metonymies and metaphors. In A. Bagasheva, B. Hristov (Eds.), Figurativity and human ecology (pp. 209–249). Amsterdam: Benjamins.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Cameron, L., & Deignan, A. (2006). The emergence of metaphor in discourse. Applied Linguistics, 27, 671–690.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Cameron, L., Maslen, R., Todd, Z., Maule, J., Stratton, P., & Stanley, N. (2009). The discourse dynamics approach to metaphor and metaphor-led discourse analysis. Metaphor and Symbol, 24(2), 63–89.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Coseriu, E. (2000). The principles of linguistics as a cultural science. Transylvanian Review (Cluj), IX, 1, 108–115.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Coseriu, E. (1985). Linguistic competence: what is it really? The Modern Language Review, xxv–xxxv.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Coulson, S., & Matlock, T. (2001). Metaphor and the space structuring model. Metaphor and symbol, 16(3–4), 295–316.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Devylder, S. (2018). Diagrammatic iconicity explains asymmetries in Paamese possessive constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 29(2), 313–348.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Devylder, S., & Zlatev, J. (2020). Cutting and breaking metaphors of the self and the Motivation and Sedimentation Model. In A. Baicchi (Ed.), Figurative meaning construction in thought and language. Amsterdam: Benjamins.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dingemanse, M., Perlman, M., & Perniss, P. (2020). Construals of iconicity: Experimental approaches to form-meaning resemblances in language. Language and Cognition, 12(1), 1–14.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Donald, M. (2001). A mind so rare: The evolution of human consciousness. New York: Norton.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Eco, U. (1984). The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gallagher, S. (2005). How the body shapes the mind. Oxford: Clarendon Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Geeraerts, D. (1993). Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics, 3(4), 223–272.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gibbs, R. & Chen, E. (2017). Taking metaphor studies back to the Stone Age: A reply to Xu, Zhang, and Wu (2016). Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1), 117–124.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gibbs, R. W. (2017). Metaphor wars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–342.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Grady, J. E. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes: University of California, Berkeley.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Group μ (J. Dubois, F. Edeline, J.-M. Klinkenberg, P. Minguet, F. Pire, H. Trinon). (1981). A General Rhetoric. Translated by Paul B. Burrel & Edgar M. Slotkin. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hass, L. (2008). Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Itkonen, E. (2005). Analogy as structure and process: Approaches in linguistics, cognitive psychology and philosophy of science. Amsterdam: Benjamins.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Itkonen, E. (2008). The central role of normativity for language and linguistics. In J. Zlatev, T. Racine, C. Sinha & E. Itkonen (Eds.), The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity (pp. 279–306). Amsterdam: Benjamins.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Jakobson, Roman. (1971). Selected Writings, II: Word and Language. The Hague: Mouton.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Jakobson, R. (1965). Quest for the essence of language. Diogenes, 13 (51):21–37.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Jensen, T. W. (2017). Doing metaphor. An ecological perspective on metaphoricity in discourse. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition & discourse (pp. 257–276). Cambridge: CUP.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Johnson, M. (2010). Metaphor and cognition. In S. Gallagher & D. Schmicking (Eds.), Handbook of phenomenology and cognitive sciences (pp. 401–414). Berlin: Springer.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kövecses, Z. (2020). Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kövecses, Z, and Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–78.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought, Second Edition (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: CUP.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic books.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University press.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (Taylor and Francis e-Library, 2005. ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968). The visible and the invisible. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Moskaluk, K., Zlatev, J., & van de Weijer, J. (2022). “Dizziness of Freedom”: Anxiety disorders and metaphorical meaning-making. Metaphor and Symbol, 37(4), 303–322.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Müller, C. (2008). Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking: A dynamic view. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Müller, C. (2019). Metaphorizing as embodied interactivity: What gesturing and film viewing can tell us about an ecological view on metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(1), 61–79.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nunberg, G. (1978). The pragmatics of reference. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Panther, K. -U., & Thornburg, L. L. 2007. Metonymy. In: D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 236–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Peña, S. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2022). Figuring Out Figuration. Benjamins.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Panther, K.-U., & Radden, G. (1999). Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam: Benjamins.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Plokhy, S. (2023). The Russo-Ukrainian war: The return of history. New York: Norton.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Proust, M. (2013 [1907]). Swann’s Way: In search of lost time, Volume 1 (Vol. 1). Yale University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rash, J. (2022). Ukrainian, Russian political cartoons draw upon antiwar sentiment. StarTribune April 22, 2022. https://www.startribune.com/ukrainian-russian-political-cartoons-draw-upon-antiwar-sentiment/600167208/]Search in Google Scholar
[
Saeed, J. I. (2016). Semantics. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Scheler, M. (1954). The nature of sympathy. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Semotiuk, O. (2023). Ukraine: Humour as a weapon of war. ZOiS Spotlight 2/2023. https://www.zois-berlin.de/en/publications/zois-spotlight/ukraine-humour-as-a-weapon-of-war]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sonesson, G. (2007). From the meaning of embodiment to the embodiment of meaning: A study in phenomenological semiotics. In T. Ziemke, J. Zlatev, & R. Frank (Eds.), Body, language, and mind. Vol 1: Embodiment (pp. 85– 128). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sonesson, G (2019). Two models of metaphoricity and three dilemmas of metaphor research. Cognitive Semiotics 12(1). DOI: 10.1515/cogsem-2019-2009]Search in Google Scholar
[
Stampoulidis, G. (2021). Street artivism on Athenian walls: A cognitive semiotic analysis of metaphor and narrative in street art. Lund University, Lund.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Stampoulidis, G., & Bolognesi, M. (2019). Bringing metaphors back to the streets: A corpus-based study for the identification and interpretation of rhetorical figures in street art Visual communication, 1–35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357219877538]Search in Google Scholar
[
Stampoulidis, G., Bolognesi, M., & Zlatev, J. (2019). A cognitive semiotic exploration of metaphors in Greek street art. Cognitive Semiotics, 12(1).]Search in Google Scholar
[
Steen, G. (2011). The contemporary theory of metaphor – now new and improved! Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 26–64.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Steen, G. (2017). Deliberate Metaphor Theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1), 1–24.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1992). The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge: MIT Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wen, X., & Taylor, J. R. (Eds.). (2021). The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics. New York, NY: Routledge.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zlatev, J. (2009). The semiotic hierarchy: Life, consciousness, signs and language. Cognitive Semiotics, 4, 169–200.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zlatev, J. (2015). Cognitive semiotics. In P. Trifonas (Ed.), International handbook of semiotics (pp. 1043–1067). Springer: Dordrecht.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zlatev, J. (2018). Meaning making from life to language: The semiotic hierarchy and phenomenology. Cognitive Semiotics, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2018-0001]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zlatev, J. (2023). The intertwining of bodily experience and language: The continued relevance of Merleau-Ponty. Histoire Épistémologie Langage, 45(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.4000/hel.3373]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zlatev, J., & Blomberg, J. (2019). Norms of language: What kinds and where from? Insights from phenomenology. In A. Mäkilähde, V. Leppänen, & E. Itkonen (Eds.), Normativity in language and linguistics (pp. 69–101). Amsterdam: Benjamins.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zlatev, J., & Moskaluk, K. (2022). Translation validity in metaphor theories CMT, DMT and the Motivation & Sedimentation Model. In A. Bagasheva, B. Hristov, & N. Tincheva (Eds.), Figurativity and Human Ecology (pp. 123–148). Ansterdam: Benjamins.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zlatev, J., Jacobsson, G., & Paju, L. (2021). Desiderata for metaphor theory, the Motivation & Sedimentation Model and motion-emotion metaphoremes In A. S. d. Silva (Ed.), Figurative language: Intersubjectivity and usage (pp. 41–74). Amsterdam: Benjamins,]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zlatev, J., Sonesson, G., & Konderak, P. (2016). (Eds.), Meaning, mind and communication: Explorations in cognitive semiotics. Bern: Peter Lang.]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zlatev, J., Zywiczynski, P., & Wacewicz, S. (2020). Pantomime as the original human-specific communicative system. Journal of Language Evolution, 1–19. doi: 10.1093/jole/lzaa006]Search in Google Scholar
