東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

A hybrid theory of metaphor = releva...

Tendahl, Markus.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

A hybrid theory of metaphor = relevance theory and cognitive linguistics /

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	A hybrid theory of metaphor/ by Markus Tendahl.
其他題名:	relevance theory and cognitive linguistics /
作者:	Tendahl, Markus.
出版者:	Basingstoke :Palgrave Macmillan, : 2009.,
面頁冊數:	xi, 282 p. :ill. ;23 cm.
內容註:	Figures -- Tables -- Typographical Conventions -- Acknowledgements -- Introduction -- The Relevance-Theory Approach to Metaphor -- Cognitive Linguistics and Metaphor -- Relevance Theory versus Cognitive Linguistics -- The Hybrid Theory of Metaphor -- Conclusion and Future Challenges -- Notes -- References -- Index.
標題:	Metaphor. -
電子資源:	http://link.springer.com/10.1057/9780230244313access to fulltext (Palgrave)
ISBN:	0230244319

A hybrid theory of metaphor = relevance theory and cognitive linguistics /
Tendahl, Markus.

A hybrid theory of metaphorrelevance theory and cognitive linguistics /[electronic resource] :by Markus Tendahl. - Basingstoke :Palgrave Macmillan,2009. - xi, 282 p. :ill. ;23 cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

Figures -- Tables -- Typographical Conventions -- Acknowledgements -- Introduction -- The Relevance-Theory Approach to Metaphor -- Cognitive Linguistics and Metaphor -- Relevance Theory versus Cognitive Linguistics -- The Hybrid Theory of Metaphor -- Conclusion and Future Challenges -- Notes -- References -- Index.

Why do we talk in metaphors? What is systematic about metaphors? Howdo we process metaphors? In the past cognitive linguistics and relevance theorists have answered these questions in very different ways and have therefore been perceived as being radically different. The differences concerning goals and working assumptions are so great, in fact, that few metaphor scholars have tried to systematically compare these two theories to understand how and why they differ. Markus Tendahl shows that cognitive linguistic and relevance theory perspectives on metaphor may be complementary. Drawing from research in pragmatics, cognitive linguistics and psycholinguistics this work is the first thatcompares andcontrasts relevance theory positions and cognitive linguistic positions on metaphor in a systematic way. The outcome is a broader and more realistic hybrid theory of metaphor that forces metaphor research into a new direction.

Electronic reproduction.
Basingstoke, England :
Palgrave Macmillan,
2009.

Mode of access:World Wide Web.

ISBN: 0230244319Subjects--Topical Terms:

517074
Metaphor.
Index Terms--Genre/Form:

542853
Electronic books.

LC Class. No.: P325.5.M47 / T46 2009

Dewey Class. No.: 401.43

A hybrid theory of metaphor = relevance theory and cognitive linguistics /
LDR:02368nmm 2200289 a 45 001 911771
003 OCoLC
005 20110114
006 m d
007 cr cn|
008 231227s2009 enka sb 001 0 eng d
020 $a 0230244319
020 $a 9780230244313
035 $a (OCoLC)449912690
035 $a ocn449912690
035 $a 911771
040 $a UKPGM $b eng $c UKPGM
049 $a APTA
050 1 4 $a P325.5.M47 $b T46 2009
082 0 4 $a 401.43 $2 22
100 1 $a Tendahl, Markus. $3 1098805
245 1 2 $a A hybrid theory of metaphor $h [electronic resource] : $b relevance theory and cognitive linguistics / $c by Markus Tendahl.
260 $a Basingstoke : $c 2009. $b Palgrave Macmillan,
300 $a xi, 282 p. : $b ill. ; $c 23 cm.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references and index.
505 0 $a Figures -- Tables -- Typographical Conventions -- Acknowledgements -- Introduction -- The Relevance-Theory Approach to Metaphor -- Cognitive Linguistics and Metaphor -- Relevance Theory versus Cognitive Linguistics -- The Hybrid Theory of Metaphor -- Conclusion and Future Challenges -- Notes -- References -- Index.
520 $a Why do we talk in metaphors? What is systematic about metaphors? Howdo we process metaphors? In the past cognitive linguistics and relevance theorists have answered these questions in very different ways and have therefore been perceived as being radically different. The differences concerning goals and working assumptions are so great, in fact, that few metaphor scholars have tried to systematically compare these two theories to understand how and why they differ. Markus Tendahl shows that cognitive linguistic and relevance theory perspectives on metaphor may be complementary. Drawing from research in pragmatics, cognitive linguistics and psycholinguistics this work is the first thatcompares andcontrasts relevance theory positions and cognitive linguistic positions on metaphor in a systematic way. The outcome is a broader and more realistic hybrid theory of metaphor that forces metaphor research into a new direction.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Basingstoke, England : $c Palgrave Macmillan, $d 2009. $n Mode of access:World Wide Web. $n System requirements: Web browser. $n Title from title screen (viewed on Oct. 6, 2009). $n Access may berestricted to users at subscribing institutions.
650 0 $a Metaphor. $3 517074
650 0 $a Sematics. $3 1098806
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 lcsh $3 542853
710 2 $a Palgrave Connect (Online service) $3 1081578
856 4 0 $3 Palgrave Connect $u http://link.springer.com/10.1057/9780230244313 $z access to fulltext (Palgrave)