Main Field of Study and progress level:
English: Second cycle, has only first-cycle course/s as entry requirements
Finnish: Second cycle, has only first-cycle course/s as entry requirements
French: Second cycle, has only first-cycle course/s as entry requirements
Linguistics: Second cycle, has only first-cycle course/s as entry requirements
Russian: Second cycle, has only first-cycle course/s as entry requirements
Scandinavian Studies: Second cycle, has only first-cycle course/s as entry requirements
Scandinavian Languages: Second cycle, has only first-cycle course/s as entry requirements
Spanish: Second cycle, has only first-cycle course/s as entry requirements
German: Second cycle, has only first-cycle course/s as entry requirements
Grading scale: Three-grade scale
Responsible department: Department of Language Studies
Established by: Faculty director of studies, Faculty of arts, 2016-04-27
Revised by: Director of studies, Department of Language Studies, 2018-06-27
Required Knowledge
Univ: At least 90 ECTS including 75 ECTS with academic progression (corresponding to level 6190 hp in the Swedish academic system) in one of the academic subjects English, Finnish, French, Linguistics, Russian, Spanish, Swedish/Nordic languages, Scandinavian Studies or German, or equivalent knowledge. Knowledge of English equivalent of English 6/English Course B.
Literature
Valid from:
2018 week 3
The Discourse Dynamics Approach to Metaphor and Metaphor-Led Discourse Analysis Cameron , Lynne , Maslen Robert, Todd Zazie, Maule John, Stratton Peter, Stanley Neil Metaphor and Symbol, 24:2 : 2009 : Mandatory
Deignan Alice Metaphor and corpus linguistics Philadelphia : J. Benjamins Pub. : 2005 : viii, 235 s. : ISBN: 1-58811-647-6 (hbk. : US) Mandatory Search the University Library catalogue
Gibbs Jr. R.W. Do pragmatic signals affect conventional metaphor understanding? A failed test of deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 77-87. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.021 : 2015a : Mandatory
Gibbs Jr. R.W. Does deliberate metaphor theory have a future? Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 73-76. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.016 : 2015b : Mandatory
Gibbs Jr. R.W. Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529-562. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103 : 2011 : Mandatory
Embodied motivations for metaphorical meanings. Johansson Falck Marlene, Gibbs J.R.W. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(2), 251-272. doi:10.1515/cog-2012-0008 : 2012 : Mandatory
Kövecses Z. Conceptual metaphor theory: Some criticisms and alternative proposals Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6(1), 168-184. doi:10.1075/arcl.6.08kov : 2008 : Mandatory
Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Kövecses Z., Radden G. Cognitive Linguistics (includes Cognitive Linguistic Bibliography), 9(1), 37-78. : 1998 : Mandatory
Conceptual Metaphor in Everyday Language Lakoff G., Johnson M. The Journal of Philosophy, 77(8), 453-486. doi:10.2307/2025464 : 1980 : Mandatory
Pragglejaz Group MIP: A Method for Identifying Metaphorically Used Words in Discourse Metaphor and Symbol, 22 : 2007 : Mandatory
Semino Elena Metaphor in discourse Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press : 2008 : xii, 247 p. : ISBN: 9780521867306 Mandatory Search the University Library catalogue
Steen G. Developing, testing and interpreting Deliberate Metaphor Theory Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 67-72. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.013 : 2015 : Mandatory
