2011
DOI: 10.1075/hcp.33.20beg
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Differences in the use of emotion metaphors in expert-lay communication

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Similarly, in Euro-American contexts a dominant metaphor for sadness is the spatial metaphor of "down" 6 (Berger, 2011;Kövecses, 2003). In fact, the term "depression" is itself a part of this spatial metaphor for sadness.…”
Section: Metaphors and Mind-body Loopsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, in Euro-American contexts a dominant metaphor for sadness is the spatial metaphor of "down" 6 (Berger, 2011;Kövecses, 2003). In fact, the term "depression" is itself a part of this spatial metaphor for sadness.…”
Section: Metaphors and Mind-body Loopsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, the meth odological triangulation of this thesis shows that different methods need to be applied to avoid premature conclusions about emotion concepts (for a more detailed account on the value of using different methods in empirical research, see also Beger 2011). Rather, the concep tualizations of these emotions seem to differ according to the goals of the commu nicative sit uation and the particular discourse roles of the participants.…”
mentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Thus, expert-lay communication (see de Beaugrande, 1997;Gentner & Stevens, 1983) is not restricted to the interaction between health professionals and patients (as it would be in a face-to-face consultation), but is rather extended to the general public. This makes the conceptualization of the roles of text-producers and text-receivers a challenging task, and, as Beger (2011) remarks, "researchers are forced to simplify the complexity of this problem for methodological reasons" (p. 321).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%