Advertisement

The Theoretical Framework and the Subject of Study

Chapter
  • 1.1k Downloads
Part of the Mathematics in Mind book series (MATHMIN)

Abstract

The following sections will introduce the tools of study and the subject to be studied—mental operations of story and conceptual blending and modern algebra.

Bibliography

  1. Alexander, J. (2011). “Blending in mathematics”. Semiotica, Issue 187. Pages 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brandt, L., & P. A. Brandt (2005). “Making sense of a blend. A cognitive-semiotic approach to metaphor”. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, Issue 3. Pages 216–249.Google Scholar
  3. Brugman, C. (1988). The Story of Over: Polysemy, Semantics, and the Structure of the Lexicon. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Bache, C. (2005). “Constraining conceptual integration theory: Levels of blending and disintegration”. Journal of Pragmatics, Issue 37. Pages 1615–1653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cayley, A. (1854). “On the theory of groups as depending on the symbolic equation θn=1”. Philosophical Magazine, Issue 7(42). Pages 40–47.Google Scholar
  6. Coulson, S. & T. Oakley (eds.). (2000). “Special issue on conceptual blending”. Cognitive Linguistics, Issue 11(3/4). Pages 175–360.Google Scholar
  7. Evans, V. & M. Green. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fauconnier, G. ([1985] 1994). Mental Spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fauconnier, G. & E. Sweetser (eds.). (1996). Spaces, Worlds and Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. (1998). “Conceptual integration networks”. Cognitive Science, Issue 22(2). Pages 33–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fauconnier, G. (1999). “Methods and generalizations”. In T. Janssen & G. Redeker (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology. Pages 98–128. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  13. Fauconnier, M. & M. Turner. (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending And The Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  14. Frege, G. (1879). “Frege (1879) Begriffsschrift, a formula language, modeled upon that of arithmetic, for pure thought” http://dec59.ruk.cuni.cz/~kolmanv/Begriffsschrift.pdf, accessed 2017-12-28.
  15. Hausdorff, F. (1914). Grundzüge der Mengenlehre. Leipzig: Veit.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibbs, R. W. & G. Steen. (1999). Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gibbs, R. W. (2000). “Making good psychology out of blending theory”. Cognitive Linguistics, Issue 11(3/4). Pages 347–358.Google Scholar
  18. Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Harder, P. (2003). “Mental Spaces: Exactly when do we need them?”. Cognitive Linguistics, Issue 14(1). Pages 91–96.Google Scholar
  20. Harder, P. (2007). “Cognitive Linguistics and Philosophy”. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Pages 1241–1265. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Herstein, I. (1975). Topics in Algebra. New York: John Wiley & Sons.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Hougaard, A. (2004). “How’re we doing?”: An Interactional Approach to Cognitive Processes of Online Meaning Construction. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Denmark, Odense.Google Scholar
  23. Hougaard, A. (2005). “Conceptual disintegration and blending in interactional sequences: A discussion of new phenomena, processes vs. products, and methodology”. Journal of Pragmatics, Issue 37. Pages 1653–1685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Koestler, A. (1964). The Act of Creation. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lakoff, G. (1986). “A Figure of Thought”. Metaphor and Symbol, Issue 1(3). Pages 215–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lakoff, G. & M. Turner. (1989). More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lakoff, G. (1990). “The invariance hypothesis: is abstract reason based on image schemas?”, Cognitive Linguistics, Issue 1. Pages 39–74.Google Scholar
  31. Lakoff, G. (1993). “The contemporary theory of metaphor”, in A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. Pages 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  33. Lakoff, G. & R. Núñez. (2000). Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being. New York: Basic Books.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume II. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Leśniewski, S. (1930). “O podstawach matematyki”. Przegląd Filozoficzny, Issue 30. Pages 165–206.Google Scholar
  36. Mac Lane, S. (1986). Mathematics, Form and Function. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mandler, J. M. (1992). “How to Build a Baby: II. Conceptual Primitives”. Psychological Review, Issue 99(4). Pages 587–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mandler, J. & C. P. Canovas. (2014). “On defining image schemas”. Language and Cognition, Issue 6(4). Pages 510–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rohrer, T. (2005). “Mimesis, artistic inspiration and the blends we live by”. Journal of Pragmatics, Issue 37. Pages 1686–1716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sinha, C. (1999). “Grounding, mapping, and acts of meaning”. In T. Janssen & G. Redeker (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope and Methodology. Pages 223–255. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stadelmann, V. (2012). Language, cognition, interaction: Conceptual blending as discursive practice. Doctoral dissertation. http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2012/8854/, accessed 2017-10-27.
  42. Steinitz, E. (1910). “Algebraische Theorie der Körper”. Crelle’s Journal, Issue 138. Pages 167–309.Google Scholar
  43. Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Talmy, Leonard. (1988). “Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition”. Cognitive Science, Issue 12. Pages 49–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Turner, M. (1996). The Literary Mind. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Turner, M. (2005). “Mathematics and Narrative”. Paper presented at the International Conference on Mathematics and Narrative, Mykonos, Greece, 12-15 July 2005. http://thalesandfriends.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/turner_paper.pdf, accessed Nov. 11, 2016.
  48. Turner, M. (2014). The Origin Of Ideas: Blending, Creativity And The Human Spark. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Van der Waerden, B. L., (1930). Moderne Algebra. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of English StudiesUniversity of WrocławOtmuchówPoland

Personalised recommendations