آفرینش معانی پیدایشی در شعر سپید برپایۀ نظریۀ هم‌آمیزی مفهومی

• اردبیلی، لیلا (1392). معناشناسی شناختی و کارکرد نظریه آمیختگی مفهومی در قصه‌های عامیانه ایرانی. رساله دکتری زبان‌شناسی. دانشگاه پیام نور واحد تهران.


• صادقی، لیلا (1392). «ادغام نوشتار و تصویر در متون ادبی براساس نظریه ادغام مفهومی». جستارهای زبانی. ش3 (15). صص75-103.


• شریعت ‌کاشانی، علی (1392). روان‌کاوی و ادبیات و هنر. تهران: مؤسسۀ فرهنگی‌پژوهشی چاپ و نشر نشر نظر.


• عبدالملکیان، گروس (1393). پذیرفتن. تهران: نشر چشمه.


• مؤذنی، علی‌محمد و شهروز خنجری (1393). «تحلیل برخی از استعاره‌های مفهومی فارسی با استفاده از الگوی شبکه‌ای و ادغام».  ادب فارسی. ش1 (13). صص1-16.

• Coulson, S. & T. Oakley (2000). “Blending Basics”. Cognitive Linguistics. 11. Pp. 175-196.


• Dancygier, B. (2004 a). “Identity and perspective: the Jekyll-and-Hyde effect in narrative discourse". Language, Culture, and Mind. Pp. 363-76.


• Dancygier, B. (2004 b). “Visual viewpoint, narrative viewpoint, and mental spaces in narrative discourse”. Linguagem, Cultura e Cognicão: Estudos de Linguistica Cognitiva. 1/ 2. Pp. 347-62.


• Dancygier, B. (2005). “Blending and narrative viewpoint: Jonathan Raban's travels through mental spaces”. Language and Literature. 14 (2). Pp. 99-127.


• Dancygier, B. (2006). “What can blending do for You?". Language and Literature. 15 (1). Pp. 5-15.


• Dancygier, B. (2008). “Personal pronouns, blending, and narrative viewpoint”. Language in the Context of Use. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 173-189 .


• Dancygier, B. (2011). The Language of Stories: A Cognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


• Evans, V. and M. Green (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.


• Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner (1994). “Conceptual projection and middle spaces”. Technical Report No. 9401, Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego. available online at: www.cogsci.ucsd. edu/research /files/technical/9401.pdf. 


• Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner (1996). “Blending as a central process of grammar”. Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language. Pp. 113-130.


• Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner (1998 a). “Conceptual integration networks”. Cognitive Science.22, 2. Pp. 133-187.


• Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner (1998 b). “Principles of conceptual integration”.Discourse and Cognition. Edited by Jean-Pierre Koenig. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Pp.269-283 [distributed by Cambridge University Press].


• Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner (1998). “Conceptual integration networks”. Cognitive Science. 22. Pp. 133-187.


• Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner (1999). “Metonymy and conceptual”. Metonymy in Language and Thought. Edited by Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 77-90. [A volume in the series Human Cognitive Processing].


• Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner (2000). “Compression and global insight”.Cognitive Linguistics. 11, 3-4. Pp. 283-304.


• Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.


• Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner (2003). “Polysemy and conceptual blending” in Brigitte Nerlich, Vimala Herman, Zazie Todd, and David Clarke (Es.). Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language. John Benjamins. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Pp. 79-94. A volume in the series Trends in Linguistics.


• Gavins, J. and G. Steen (2003). Cognitive Poetics in Practice. London: Routledge.


• Gavins, J. and G. Steen (2005). “Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration”. Journal of Pragmatics. 37. Pp. 1595-614.


• Gavins, J. and G. Steen; T. Oakley & S. Coulson (1999). “Blending and metaphor”. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Pp. 101-124.


• Gavins, J. and G. Steen; T. Oakley & S. Coulson (1999). “Blending and metaphor” in G. Steen & R. Gibbs (Eds.). Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pp. 101-124.  


• Hawkes, T. (2003). Structuralism and Semiotics. London: Routledge.


• Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.


• Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press.


• Lakoff, G.; M. Johnson and M. Turner (1989). More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: Chicago University Press.


• Lakoff, G.; M. Johnson and M. Turner (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: Chicago University Press.


• Liddle, S. (1998). “Grounded blends, gestures, and conceptual shifts”. Cognitive Linguistics. 9 (3). Pp. 283-314.


• Mandelbilt, N. (2000). “The grammatical marking of conceptual integration: from syntax to morphology”. Cognitive Linguistics. 11. Pp. 197-252.


• Pascual, E. (2002). Imaginary Trialogues: Conceptual Blending and Fictive Interaction in Criminal Courts. Utrecht: Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap.


• Ren, J. and Y. Li (2015). “A complementary perspective of conceptual blending theory and relevance theory on metaphor interpretation”. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 5 (10). Pp. 2091-2096.


• Semino, E. (2006). “Blending and characters’ mental functioning in Virginia Woolf’s Lappin and Lapinova”. Language and Literature. 15 (1). Pp. 55-72.


• Singerland, E. (2005). “Conceptual blending, somatic marking, and normativity: a case example from ancient Chinese”. Cognitive Linguistics. 16 (2). Pp. 557-84.


• Sweetser, E. (2000). “Blended spaces and performativity”. Cognitive Linguistics. 11. Pp. 305-333.


• Sweetser, E. (2006). “Whose rhyme is whose reason? sound and sense in Cyrano de Bergerac”. Language and Literature. 15 (1). Pp. 29-54.


• Tobin, V. (2006). “Ways of reading Sherlock Holms: the entrenchment of discourse blends”. Language and Literature. 15 (1). Pp. 73-90.


• Turner, M. (1996). The Literary Mind: The Origins of Language and Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


• Turner, M. (2001). “The Cognitive Study of Art, Language, and Literature”. Poetics Today. 23 (1). Pp. 9-20.


• Turner, M. (2001). Cognitive Dimensions of Social Science: The Way We Think about Politics, Law, Economics, and Society. Oxford: Oxford university Press.


• Turner, M. (2006). “Compression and representation”. Language and Literature. 15 (1). Pp. 17-27.


• Turner, M. (2014). The Origins of Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


• Ungerer, F. and H.J. Schmid (2006). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Harlow/ London: Longman.

Zbikowski, L. (2001). Conceptualizing Music: Cognitive Structure, Theory, and Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.