mui-tas diferenças entre essas opiniões. Surpreendeu-nos, por exemplo, o resultado
que indicava os homens com uma autoavaliação negativa enquanto expressavam
uma avaliação positiva em relação às mulheres. Uma vez constatada a diferença
intracultural entre homens e mulheres, realizamos uma enquete sobre o tema
“vida”, em que solicitamos aos entrevistados que completassem, com sua opinião,
a lacuna indicada pelas reticências em “A vida é...”.
Assim, podemos compreender quão complexa é a comunicação, que
en-volve vários tipos de influências culturais. Acreditamos, então, que a pesquisa em
questão possa ser útil para aqueles que lidam com problemas de comunicação,
seja em sala de aula, seja entre membros de uma família, seja entre amigos/amigas.
Pelo menos, de nossa parte, podemos dizer que os contatos com interlocutores
diversos têm sido muito mais confortáveis, já que, por conta das diferenças
evi-denciadas pelo presente estudo, podemos compreender as dificuldades envolvidas
na comunicação.
Nesse sentido, a linguística aplicada, que hoje envolve teorias
multifun-cionais, como a Linguística Sistêmico-Funcional, na qual se apoiam a linguística
crítica e a análise crítica da metáfora, tem ajudado a esclarecer, não só para nós,
mas também para nossos alunos e orientandos, a complexidade do discurso.
Fi-nalmente, esperamos que esta obra contribua para as pesquisas na área da
linguís-tica aplicada e do ensino de línguas.
BIBLIOGRAFIA
AUGUSTO, S. As lições de inglês do cinema. Folha de São Paulo, São Paulo, 30 maio 1986.
BAKHTIN, M. Estetika skivesnogo tvorcestva. Moscou: Izdatel’stvo Iskusstvo, 1979.
BANKS, D. Emerging scientific discourse in the late seventeenth century: a comparison of Newton’s
Opticks, and Huygens. Traité de la lumière. Functions of language, v. 12, n. 1, 2005.
BARCELONA, A. Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: a cognitive perspective. Topics in
English linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.
______. The state of the art in the cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy and its application to
English studies. The European English messenger,v. 7, n. 2, p. 42-50, 1998.
BLACK, M. Models and metaphor. New York: Cornell University Press, 1962.
BLAKEMORE, D. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell, 1987.
BOERS, F. Applied linguistics perspectives on cross-cultural variation in conceptual metaphor.
Metaphor and symbol,v. 18, p. 231-238, 2003.
BUSH, G. Address before a joint session of the Congress on the State of the Union. Jan. 29
th, 1991. In:
PETERS, G.; WOOLLEY, J. T. The American Presidency Project. Disponível em:
<http://www.presi-dency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=19253>. Acesso em: 10 set. 2016.
BYRNES, H. Interactional style in German and American conversations.Text, v. 6, n. 2, p. 189-206, 1986.
CALDAS-COULTHARD, R. C; COULTHARD, M. Texts and practices: readings in critical discourse
analysis.London: TJ Press, 1996.
CAMERON, D. The feminist critique of language: a reader. London: Routeledge, 1990.
______. Feminism and linguistic theory. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1985.
CAMPOS PARDILLOS, M. A. Deixis as a reference to an alleged shared situation in persuasive
discourse. Revista alicantina de estudos ingleses, v. 8, p. 57-67, 1995.
CHANNELL, J. Corpus-based analysis of evaluative texts. In: HUNSTON, S.; THOMPSON, G. (Ed.)
Evaluation in text. Oxford: OUP, p. 38-55, 2000.
CHARTERIS-BLACK, J. Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2004.
______. Speaking with forked tongue: a comparative study of metaphor and metonymy in English and
Malay phraseology.Metaphor and symbol, v. 27, 2003.
CHOULIARAKI, L.; FAIRCLOUGH, N. Discourse in late modernity: rethink critical discourse
analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999.
COFFIN, C. The voices of history: theorizing the interpersonal semantics of historical discourses. Text,
v. 22, n. 4, p. 503-528, 2002.
CONNOR, U.; DAVIS, K. W.; DE RYCKER, T. Correctness and clarity in applying for overseas jobs: a
cross-cultural analysis of US and Flemish applications.Text, v. 15, n. 4, p. 457-475, 1995.
COOK, G. Discourse and literature. London: Routledge; Kegan Paul, 1994.
______. The discourse of advertising. London: Routledge; Kegan Paul, 1992.
CROFT, W. The Darwinization of linguistics. Selection, v. 3, p. 75-91, 2002.
______. The role of domains in the interpretations of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive
linguistics, v. 4, p. 335-370, 1993.
CRUSE, D. A. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968.
D’ANDRADE, R. G. The development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge Universiity
Press, 1995.
DAVIDSON, D. What metaphors mean. Critical inquiry, v. 5, n. 1, p. 31-34, 1978.
DEETZ, S. Politically attentive relational constructions (PARC) and making a difference in a
pluralis-tic, interdependent worlds. In: CARBAUGH, D.; BUZZANELL, P. (Ed.). Distinctive qualities in
communicating research. Oxford: Taylor and Francis, 2009.
DÍAZ-CINTAS,J. Striving for quality in subtitling: the role of a good dialog list. In: GAMBIER, Y;
GOTTLIEB, H. (Ed.). (Multi)Media translation, concepts, practice and research. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 2001.
DIETRICH, A. The cognitive neuroscience of creativity.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,v. 11, p.
1011-1029, 2004.
DIRVEN, R. Metonymy and metaphor: different mental strategies of conceptualisation. Leuvense
bijdragen, v. 82, p. 1-28, 1993.
______.; FRANK. R. M., ILLIE, C. Language and ideology. Theoretical cognitive approaches.
Ams-terdam: John Benjamins, 2001. v. 2.
______.; ______.; PÜTZ, M. (Ed.). Cognitive models in language an thought: ideology, metaphors
and meanings.Berlin: Mouton the Gruyter, 2003.
DOWNING, L. H. Text world creation in advertising discourse. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses,
n. 13 p. 67-88, nov. 2000. Disponível em: <https://rua.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/5332/1/RAEI_13_06.
pdf> . Acesso em: 5 mar. 2012.
EGGINS, S. An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Continuum, 2004.
FAIRCLOUGH, N. Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan,
2004.
______. Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. London: Longman, 1995.
______. Critical language awareness. London: Routledge, 1992.
______. Language and power. London: Longman, 1989.
FAUCONNIER, G. Mental spaces. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985.
149
FILLMORE, C. J. Frame semantics in linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hanshin, 1982.
______. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In: ANNUAL MEETING OF BERKELEY
LINGUISTICS SOCIETY, 1., 1975, Berkeley. Proceedings… Berkeley: University of California, 1975.
p. 123-131.
FIRTH, J. R. The technique of semantics. Transactions of the philological society, 1935.
FORCEVILLE, C. The identification of target and source in pictorial metaphor. Journal of pragmatics,
v. 34, p. 1-14, 2002.
______. Pictorial metaphor in advertising. London: Routledge, 1996.
FOWLER, R. Language arts and disciplines. Oxford: OUP, 2006.
______. On critical linguistics. In: CALDAS-COUTHARD, C. R.; COULTHARD, M. (Ed.). Texts
and practices: readings in critical discourse analysis. New York: Routledge, 1996.
______. Language in the news. New York: Routledge, 1991.
FOWLER, R. et al. Language and control. London: Routledge; Kegan Paul, 1979.
FRANCO, E. P. C. Everything you wanted to know about film translation (but didn’t have the
chance to ask). 1991. 170p. Dissertação (Mestrado em Letras)–Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina,
Florianópolis, 1991.
GEERAERTS, D. The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In: DIRVEN,
R.; PÖRINGS, R. (Ed.). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter, 2003. p. 435-465.
GIBBS, R. W. Are “deliberate” metaphors really deliberate? A question of human consciousness and
action. Metaphor and the social world, v. 1, n. 1, p. 26-52, 2011.
______. The poetics of mind: figurative though, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1994.
GOATLY, A. The language of metaphors. New York: Routledge, 1997.
GODDARD, A. The language of advertising: written texts. London: Routledge, 1998.
GRADY, J. E. Primary metaphors as input to conceptual integration. Journal of pragmatics, v. 37, p.
1595-1614, 2005.
______. Typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. Resemblance. Metaphor in
cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.
______. Theories are building revisited. Cognitive linguistics, v. 8, p. 267-290, 1997a.
______. Foundations of meaning: primary metaphors and primary scenes. 1997. 300p. Thesis
(Doctoral of Philosophy in Linguistics)–University of California, Berkeley, 1997b.
GREIMAS, A. Dictionnaire raisonnée de semiotique. Paris: Dunot, 1979.
HALLIDAY, M. A. K. An introduction to functional grammar. 2. ed. London: Edward Arnold, 1994.
______. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold, 1985.
______. Language and a social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London:
Edward Arnold, 1978.
______.; HASAN, R. Language, context, and text: aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective.
No documento
METÁFORA CULTURAL Persuasão e Revelação
(páginas 146-150)