Titlebook: A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor; Relevance Theory and Markus Tendahl Book 2009 Markus Tendahl 2009 cognitive linguistics.future.knowledge.lingu

Dopamine

書目名稱A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor影響因子(影響力)




書目名稱A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor影響因子(影響力)學(xué)科排名




書目名稱A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度




書目名稱A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度學(xué)科排名




書目名稱A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor被引頻次




書目名稱A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor被引頻次學(xué)科排名




書目名稱A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor年度引用




書目名稱A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor年度引用學(xué)科排名




書目名稱A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor讀者反饋




書目名稱A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor讀者反饋學(xué)科排名

FOIL

不規(guī)則的跳動

https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-31251-Xider this situation unfortunate, because relevance theory, as a cognitive pragmatic view on language and communication, can make very important and unique contributions to the study of metaphor. I will start this chapter by first giving a very brief overview of Gricean pragmatics, because although r

Mechanics

Aggrandize

https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-31251-Xproaches to metaphor see metaphor as a form of language that is characterized by deviance from a literal standard, both relevance theory and cognitive linguistics do not support this position and view metaphor as a ubiquitous part of both ordinary language use and everyday cognition.

蘑菇

https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-31251-X In this chapter, I want to gather together the results deriving from these discussions. The outcome of this will be a hybrid theory of metaphor that is significantly influenced by relevance theory and cognitive linguistics, but in which I will also make original contributions which cannot be found

thalamus

龍卷風(fēng)

Book 2009A provoking new approach to how we understand metaphors thoroughly comparing and contrasting the claims made by relevance theorists and cognitive linguists. The resulting hybrid theory shows the complementarity of many positions as well as the need and possibility of achieving a broader and more realistic theory of our understanding.

祖?zhèn)?/a>

https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244313cognitive linguistics; future; knowledge; linguistics; linguists; metaphor; understanding; literary diction

biosphere