March 2005 rough draft: Please do not cite without permission
Download 154.65 Kb.
|
| Gries, Peter Hays, and Kaiping Peng. 2002. “Culture Clash? Apologies East and West,” Journal of Contemporary China 11, 30, pp.173-8.
Haidt, J. 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 813–834. Haidt, J., & Hersh, M. A. 2001. Sexual morality: The cultures and emotions of conservatives and liberals. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 191–221. Hirschfeld, L. and Gelman, S. (eds.). 1994. Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press. Jervis. 1976. Johnson, Mark. 1981 (ed.). Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. ———. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kahneman, Daniel, Paul Slovic and Amos Tversky (eds.). 1982. Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky (eds). 2000. Choices, Values, and Frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Khong, Yuen Foong. 1992. Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. Kovecses, Zoltan. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ———. 1991. “Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf,” Journal of Urban and Cultural Studies, 2, 1, pp.59-72. ———. 1993 “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor.” In Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition), 202-251. Ed. by Andrew Ortony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1996. Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know that Liberals Don’t Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books. Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Lazarus, Richard. 1991. Emotion and Adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press. Lazarus, Richard and Lazarus, Bernice. 1994. Passion and Reason: Making Sense of Our Emotions. New York: Oxford University Press LeDoux, J. 1996. The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life. New York: Simon and Schuster. Marcus, G.E. 2000. “Emotions in Politics,” Annual Review of Political Science 3, pp.221-50. Marks, Michael P. 2001. “The Prison as Metaphor: Recasting the ‘Dilemma’ of International Relations,” Alternatives, 26, pp.349-371. Martin, A. and L. Chao. 2001. “Semantic memory and the brain: structure and processes.” Current Opinion in Neurobiology 11: 194-201. McNeill, D. 1992. Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal About Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Miller, Eugene F. 1979. “Metaphor and Political Knowledge,” American Political Science Review 73, 1, pp.155-170. Mutimer, David. 1997. “Reimagining Security: The Metaphors of Proliferation,” in Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams, eds. Critical Security Studies. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota, pp.187-221. Nussbaum, Martha. 2001. Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of the Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ortony, Andrew (ed.). 1979/1993. Metaphor and Thought (2nd Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ortony, Andrew, Gerlad Clore, and Allan Collins. 1990. The Cognitive Structure of Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richardson, Daniel, Michael Spivey, Shimon Edelman, Adam Naples. 2001. “Language is Spatial: Experimental Evidence for Image Schemas of Concrete and Abstract Verbs.” Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum: 873-878. Roher, Tim. 1995. “The Metaphorical Logic of (Political) Rape: The New Wor(l)d Order,” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10, 2, pp. 115-137. ———. 2005. “Image Schemata in the Brain.” In From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. Beate Hampe and Joseph Grady, xx-xx. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
———. 2005. “Conceptual Blending, Somatic Marking, and Normativity: A Case Example from Ancient Chinese.” Forthcoming in Cognitive Linguistics 16.2 (May 2005). Solomon, Robert (ed.). 2003. What is An Emotion? Classic and Contemporary Readings. New York: Oxford University Press. ———. 2004. Thinking About Feeling: Contemporary Philosophers on Emotion. New York: Oxford University Press. Strauss. 1987. Strauss and Corbin 1990. Sweetser, Evelyn. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Talmy, L. 2000. Towards a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Tanel, D., Hannah Damasio and Antonio Damasio. 1997. “A neural basis for the retrieval of conceptual knowledge.” Neurophychologia 35: 1319-1327. Tischer et al, 2000 Yee, Albert S. 2004. “Semantic Ambiguity and Joint Deflections in the Hainan Negotiations,” China: An International Journal 2,1, pp.53-82. Zwaan, Rolf. 2004. The immersed experiencer: toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In: B.H. Ross (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 44 (pp. 35-62). New York: Academic Press. 1 For a basic introduction to contemporary metaphor theory, see Lakoff and Johnson 1980 and 1999; Lakoff and Turner; Johnson 1987; Sweetser; and Kövecses 2002. Lakoff 1993 is perhaps the most accessible article-length, general introduction to the cognitive theory of metaphor, and Johnson 1981 and Ortony 1993 are helpful resources that provide a variety of theoretical perspectives on metaphor. 2 See Fauconnier: 1-5 for a brief discussion of how this treatment of language as mere “signals” connected to a deeper, non-linguistic structure differs from structural or generative linguistic approaches. See Johnson 1987, Lakoff 1987, Langacker 1987, and Barsalou 1999 for arguments that linguistic representations have an analog, spatial component rather than being amodal, formal symbols, and Damasio 1989, Tanel, Damasio & Damasio 1997, Martin and Chao 2001, Gibbs 2003, and Zwaan 2004 for empirical evidence favoring these views. 3 Approaches to analogical reasoning in IR have often seen the use of analogy as detrimental to policy, highlighting policy makers’ tendencies to use analogies poorly (see for example, Khong 1992; cf. Chilton 1996: 33). On the differences between analogy and metaphor from a political psychology approach to foreign policy, see Shimko 1994, and for more a general discussion, see Ortony 1979/1993. 4 For the most recent and comprehensive statement of blending theory see Fauconnier and Turner 2002; for an brief introduction and comparison with conceptual metaphor theory, see Grady, Oakley & Coulson 1999. 5 Slingerland 2005. The role of affect has not been entirely neglected in the literature on blending. Fauconnier and Turner occasionally make reference to the emotional function of blends (e.g., 2002: 66–67, 82–83), and the importance of emotion in moral argumentation is explored at some length by Seana Coulson, who observes that blends are often constructed in order to “structure our expectations and cue the appropriate affective response” (2001: 185). When we consider debate concerning such contentious issues as abortion, Coulson argues that the battle does not revolve around narrow definitional issues or propositional reasoning, but rather how to frame the situation in terms of already widely accepted cultural models, which have “substantially different moral implications, affective dictates, and physical and social consequences” (244). She also notes that the role of affect and “value” is often ignored by cognitive scientists, “perhaps because it is not easily formalized” (194). 6 This phenomenon has been explored in some depth by Lakoff 1996. See also Coulson’s observation that framing is an arguable process: the topology of input spaces or “models” is “partial and idealized”, and “mappings from models to situations are underdetermined” (2001: 245). This means that “frame-shifting”—or, to employ the terms we are using in this discussion, the choice and definition of input spaces—is a common and important polemical device. 7 For just a sampling, see Damasio 2000, 2003; de Sousa 1987; Ekman & Davidson 1994; Frank 1988; Gordon 1987; Haidt 2001; Haidt & Hersch 2001; Lazarus 1991; Lazarus & Lazarus 1994; Le Doux 1996; Nussbaum 2001; Ortony et al. 1990; Rorty 1980; and Solomon 2003, 2004. For an example of recent fMRI studies concerned with the role of emotion in moral reasoning, see Greene et al. 2001. 8 Damasio conflates the two primary forms of Enlightenment ethical and practical reasoning—utilitarian cost/benefit analysis and deontological reasoning from first principles—and therefore incorrectly attributes utilitarian views to Kant (see, for instance, 1994: 173–174). This does not affect the validity of his point, however, and we might simply add “analysis in terms of deontological principles” to his mentions of cost/benefit analysis. 9 See, for instance, the description of the famous Phineas Gage, a nineteenth century man whose prefrontal cortex was selectively damaged by an iron tamping rod (8–10), or “Eliot”, a patient of Damasio’s, whose prefrontal cortex was damaged by a brain tumor (34–51). 10 See, for example, Gigerenzer & Selten 2001; Kahneman, Slovic & Tversky 1982; and Kahneman & Tversky 2000. 11 Exceptions to the general IR neglect of affect include Jervis 1976, chapter 10, and Alker 1996, especially chapters 2,3,8; see Crawford 2000, footnote 2 for further exceptions. 12 For more on grounded theory, see Glaser and Strauss,1967; Strauss, 1987; Strauss and Corbin, 1990; Coffey, et al, 1996; Tischer et al, 2000. For more on qualitative media analysis, see Altheide, 1996. 13 The Atlas/ti program was developed at the Technical University of Berlin, Germany, for the support of text interpretation. One of its creators, Thomas Muhr (1991:350), explained the impetus for creating the ATLAS/ti program: “The design objective was not to automatize the process of text analysis, but rather to develop a tool that effectively supports the human interpreter, especially in the handling of complex informational structures.” We selected to use ATLAS/ti for the coding of our documents because the program allowed us to handle large amounts of text or data for interpretation without eliminating the conceptual in the process--the everyday human understanding of meaning that is important to any study of metaphor discourse. For more information on ATLAS (Archive for Technology, the Lifeworld, and Everyday language) see Thomas Muhr, ‘ATLAS/ti—A Prototype for the Support of Text Interpretation,’ Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 14, No.4, 1991. 14 The numbers used to create the illustrative tables are direct counts from 155 Chinese primary text documents (news stories) and 176 US primary documents (news stories) over the 13-day period. 15 See Damasio 1994: 226-230 for a discussion of the “body-minded brain” and its probable evolutionary origins; Hirshfeld and Gelman 1994 for a collection of essays making the case for universal human domain-specific structures of understanding; Lakoff and Johnson 1998: 17-18 and 95 for some discussion of evolutionary pressures on the embodied mind; and Carroll 1999 for the argument that cognitive linguistics needs to pay more attention to the findings of evolutionary psychology. Directory: dept -> LAS dept -> Data Analysis (Math 206) Exam 2 Name Spring 2002 Hartlaub dept -> Engineering Library Reference Manual LAS -> The tibetans october 7, 1950 dept -> Megan andreas moreno, md, msed, mph dept -> New Media Power: The Internet and Global Activism dept -> Electric vehicle (EV), also referred to as an electric drive vehicle dept -> Catalog description dept -> The evolution of gaming computers Download 154.65 Kb. Share with your friends:
|