Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A major difficulty in studying figurative thought and language from an interdisciplinary perspective is that scholars can misunderstand the goals, methods, and terminology of researchers in academic fields different from their own. Our understanding of how people think, speak, and understand figuratively has indeed greatly benefited from interdisciplinary investigations published in Metaphor and Symbolic Activity. However, unfortunate misunderstandings of interdisciplinary ideas do arise, especially when scholars attempt to relate data from one field to theories proposed in neighboring disciplines.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gibbs et al. (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: