Y ahora, ¿cómo encuentro una metáfora? La Teoría de la Metáfora Conceptual 40 años después
Palabras clave:
cognición situada, enactivismo, lenguaje figurado, metonimia, modelos de la cogniciónResumen
La noción de metáfora habita en el imaginario del lenguaje desde siempre. Originalmente era una figura de la lengua escrita y la retórica del discurso. En 1980, con la aparición de la Teoría de la Metáfora Conceptual (Lakoff y Johnson, 1980), se separó del lenguaje y se volvió una operación abstracta que, actualmente, puede estudiarse como el mecanismo detrás de los patrones culturales en la relación tiempo y espacio, los rituales sociales, el cine, la pintura, entre otros. Se ha vuelto más abarcadora pero más difícil de identificar. Como toda abstracción explicativa, debe servir a ciertos propósitos. En este trabajo, se argumenta que los objetivos originales de esta noción, como una operación conceptual, se han perdido por completo y poco se han reconocido las consecuencias de esta falta de pertinencia teórica. En la última parte, se echa mano de la noción de metáfora deliberada como un conjunto de criterios claros para identificarlas.
Descargas
Referencias
Abrahamson, D., Sánchez-García, R. y Smyth, C. (2016). “Metaphors are projected constraints on action: An ecological dynamics view on learning across the disci-plines”. In C. K. Looi, J. L. Polman, U. Cress, y P. Reimann (Eds.), Transforming learning, empowering learners. Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 314-321). Singapore: National Institute of Education.
Banan, S., Ridwan, M. y Adisaputera, A. (2020). “A study of connectionism theory”. BIRCI-Journal: Humanities, 3(3), pp. 2335-2342. https://doi.org/10.33258/birci.v3i3.1181
Barsalou, L. (2008). “Grounded cognition”. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, pp. 617- 6 45.
Barsalou, L., Simmons, K. y Wilson, C. (2003). “Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems”. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), pp. 84-91.
Beer, R. D. (2014). “Dynamical systems and embedded cognition”. In K. Frankish y W. M. Ramsey (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 128-150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bender, A. y Beller, S. (2014). “Mapping spatial frames of reference onto time: A review of theoretical accounts and empirical findings”. Cognition, 132, pp. 342-382.
Bernárdez, E. (2016). “From butchers and surgeons to the linguistic method. On language and cognition as supraindividual phenomena”. In M. Romano y M. D. Porto (Eds.), Exploring discourse strategies in social and cognitive interaction: Multimodal and cross-linguistic perspectives (pp. 21-38). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bezuidenhout, A. (2017). “Contextualism and semantic minimalism”. In Y. Huang (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics (pp. 21-46). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697960.013.31
Biase-Dyson, C. D. y Egg, M. (Eds.). (2020). Drawing attention to metaphor: Case studies across time periods, cultures and modalities. Amsterdam/Philadel-phia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Borghi, A. M., Barca, L., Binkofski, F., Castelfranchi, C., Pezzulo, G. y Tum-molini, L. (2019). “Words as social tools: Language, sociality and inner groun-ding in abstract concepts”. Physics of Life Reviews, 29, pp. 120-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2018.12.001
Boroditsky, L. (2001). “Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ Conceptions of time”. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), pp. 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0748
Bouissac, P. (2008). “The study of metaphor and gesture. A critique from the pers-pective of semiotics”. In A. Cienki y C. Müller (Eds.), Metaphor and gesture (pp. 277-282). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Brown, T. L. (2003). Making truth: Metaphor in science. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Bruce, V. (2009). “Remembering faces”. In J. R. Brockmole (Ed.), The visual world in memory (pp. 66-88). Nueva York: Psychology Press.
Bruce, V., Le Voi, M. E. y Broadbent, D. E. (1983). “Recognizing faces”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences, 302(1110), pp. 423-436. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1983.0065
Buccino, G., Colagè, I., Silipo, F. y D’Ambrosio, P. (2019). “The concreteness of abstract language: An ancient issue and a new perspective”. Brain Structure and Function, 224(4), pp. 1385-1401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-019-01851-7
Cardillo, E., Watson, C., Schmidt, G., Kranjec, A. y Chatterjee, A. (2012). “From novel to familiar: Tuning the brain for metaphors”. NeuroImage, 59(4) pp. 3212-3221.
Casasanto, D. (2009). “Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and lefthanders”. Journal of Experimental Psychology (General), 138, p p . 351-167.
Casasanto, D. (2010). “Space for thinking”. In V. Evans y P. Chilton (Eds.), Lan-guage, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions (pp. 453 - 478). London: Equinox Publishing.
Casasanto, D. y Gijssels, T. (2015). “What makes a metaphor an embodied me-t a phor ”. Linguistic Vanguard, 1(1), pp. 327-337.
Casasanto, D. y Jasmin, K. (2012). “The hands of time: Temporal gestures in English speakers”. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(4), pp. 643-674.Chui, K. (2011). “Conceptual metaphors in gesture”. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(3), pp. 437-458.
Cienki, A. (2008). “Why study metaphor and gesture?”. In A. Cienki y C. Mü-ller (Eds.), Metaphor and Gesture (pp. 5-25). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action and cognitive exten-sion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Colston, H. (2015). Using figurative language. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Conte, E., Todarello, O., Federici, A., Vitiello, F., Lopane, M. y Khrennikov, A. (2003). “A preliminar evidence of quantum like behavior in measurements of mental states”. NeuroQuantol, 6, pp. 126-139.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cserép, A. (2014). “Conceptual metaphor theory: In defence or on the fence?” Argumentum, 10, pp. 261-288.
Cuccio, V. y Caruana, F. (2019). “Rethinking the abstract/concrete concepts dichotomy: Comment on ‘Words as social tools: Language, sociality and inner grounding in abstract concepts’ by Anna M. Borghi etal.”. Physics of Life Reviews, 29, pp. 157-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2018.12.001
Cuccio, V. y Steen, G. (2019). “Deliberate metaphors and embodied eimulation”. In I. Navarro-Ferrando (Ed.), Current approaches to metaphor analysis in dis-course (pp. 185-204). Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
Damerall, A. y Kellogg, R. (2016). “Familiarity and aptness in metaphor comprehension”. American Journal of Psychology, 129(1), pp. 49-64.
Dancygier, B. y Sweetser, E. (2014). Figurative language. Cambridge, MA: Cam-bridge University Press.
De la Fuente, J., Santiago, J., Román, A., Dumitrache, C. y Casasanto, D. (2014). “When you think about it, your past is in front of you: How culture shapes spatial conceptions of time”. Psychological Science, 25(9), pp. 1682-1690.
Dobrovol’skij, D. y Piirainen, E. (2005). Figurative language: Cross-cultural and cross-linguistic perspectives. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Dolscheid, S., Celik, S., Erkan, H., Küntay, A. y Majid, A. (2019). “Space-pitch associations differ in their susceptibility to language”. Cognition, 19 6. ht tps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104073
Dove, G. (2016). “Three symbol ungrounding problems: Abstract concepts and the future of embodied cognition”. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), pp. 1109-1121. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423- 015- 0825- 4
Dove, G. (2018). “Language as a disruptive technology: Abstract concepts, embodiment and the flexible mind”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1752), p. 20170135. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0135
Duffy, S. (2014). “The role of cultural artifacts in the interpretation of metapho-rical expressions about time”. Metaphor and Symbol, 29(2), pp. 94-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2014.889989
Escandell, M. V. (2007). Apuntes de Semántica Léxica. Madrid: UNED.
Escobar, L. (en prensa). Los gestos del tiempo. Chihuahua, México: EAHNM-INAH.
Escobar, L. (2021). “En la gestualidad, tiempo es espacio no es una metáfora”. Lingüística Mexicana. Nueva Época, (3)2, pp. 17-40.
Escobar, L. y Ramírez, I. (2020). “El pasado casi nunca queda atrás: Expresión gestual del tiempo en español”. Cuadernos de Lingüística de El Colegio de Méxi-co, 7(147), pp. 1-45.
Evans, V. (2010). “Temporal frames of reference”. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(3), pp. 393-435.Fowler, C. A. y Rosenblum, L. D. (1991). “The perception of phonetic gestures”. En I. G. Mattingly y M. Studdert-Kennedy (Eds.), Modularity and the motor theory of speech perception (pp. 33-59). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fusaroli, R., Gangopadhyay, N. y Tylén, K. (2014). “The dialogically extended mind: Language as skillful intersubjective engagement”. Cognitive Systems Research, 29-30, pp. 31-39.
Gallagher, S. (2017). Enactivist interventions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Gallagher, S. y Lindgren, R. (2015). “Enactive metaphors: Learning through full-body engagement”. Educational Psychology Review, 27, pp. 391-404.
Gándara, M. (2011). El análisis teórico en ciencias sociales: Aplicación a una teoría del origen del estado en Mesoamérica (tesis doctoral). Escuela Nacional de An-tropología e Historia, Ciudad de México.
Gibbs, R. W. (2011). “Are ‘deliberate’ metaphors really deliberate?”. Metaphor and the Social World, 1(1), pp. 26-52.
Gibbs, R. W. (2014). “Why do some people dislike conceptual metaphor theory?”. Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1-2). https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem.2013.5.12.14
Gibbs, R. W. (2019). “Metaphor as dynamical–ecological performance”. Meta-phor and Symbol, 34(1), pp. 33-44.
Gibson, J. J. (2014). The ecological approach to visual perception: Classic edition. New York/ London: Psychology Press.
Gijssels, T. y Casasanto, D. (2017). “Conceptualizing time in terms of space: Experimental evidence”. En B. Dancygier (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 651-668). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Gilead, M., Trope, Y. y Liberman, N. (2020). “Above and beyond the concrete: The diverse representational substrates of the predictive brain”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 43, e121. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X19002000Godfrey, H. K. (2011). Conceptual metaphors of emotion in spoken language: GOOD IS UP in semantics and prosody (tesis de maestría). Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, Nueva Zelanda.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Greifenstein, S., Horst, D., Scherer, T., Schmitt, C., Kappelhoff, H. y Müller, C. (Eds.). (2020). Cinematic metaphor in perspective. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110615036
Harnad, S. (1990). “The symbol grounding problem”. Physica D, 42, pp. 335-346.
Hawkes, T. (2017). Metaphor. London/New York: Routledge.
Hempel, C. G. (1970). Aspects of scientific explanation: And other essays in the philosophy of science. New York/London: Free Press.
Hoffman, D. (2019). The case against reality: Why evolution hid the truth from our eyes. New York: W. W. Norton y Company.
Hoffman, R. y Nead, J. (1983). “General contextualism, ecological science and cognitive research”. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 4(4), pp. 507-559.
Holyoak, K. J. y Stamenkovic, D. (2018). “Metaphor comprehension: A critical review of theories and evidence”. Psychological Bulletin, 144(6), pp. 641-671.
James, W. (1907). “What pragmatism means”. En W. James, Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking (pp. 17-32). London: Longman Green and Co.
Jensen, T. W. (2018). “The world between us. The social affordances of metaphor in face-to-face interaction”. RASK Internationalt tidsskrift for sprog og kommunikation, 47, pp. 45-76.
Jensen, T. W. y Cuffari, E. (2014). “Doubleness in experience: Toward a distributed enactive approach to metaphoricity”. Metaphor and Symbol, 29(4), pp. 278-297. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2014.948798
Jensen, T. W. y Greve, L. (2019). “Ecological cognition and metaphor”. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(1), pp. 1-16.
Kastrup, B. (2018). “Conflating abstraction with empirical observation: The false mind-matter dichotomy”. Constructivist Foundations, 13(3), pp. 341-361.
Kearns, K. (2012). Semantics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kemmerer, D. (2015). “Are the motor features of verb meanings represented in the precentral motor cortices? Yes, but within the context of a flexible, multilevel architecture for conceptual knowledge”. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(4), 1068-1075. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423- 014- 0784-1
Kemmerer, D. (2019). Concepts in the brain: The view from cross-linguistic diversity. Nueva York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190682620.001.0001
Khrennikov, A. (2002). “On the cognitive experiments to test quantum-like behaviour of mind”. BioSystems, 84, pp. 225-241.
Kohler, K. J. (2007). “Beyond laboratory phonology the phonetics of speech communication”. En M. J. Solé, P. S. Beddor, y M. Ohala (Eds.), Experimen-tal approaches to phonology (pp. 41-53). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kompa, N. (2017). “The myth of embodied metaphor”. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 17(2), pp. 195-210.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Cambridge, MA: Cam-bridge University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2013). “The metaphor–metonymy relationship: Correlation me-taphors are based on metonymy”. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(2), pp. 75-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2013.768498
Kuhnke, P., Kiefer, M. y Hartwigsen, G. (2020). “Task-dependent recruitment of modality-specific and multimodal regions during conceptual processing”. Cerebral Cortex, 30(7), pp. 3938-3959. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bha a010
Lakoff, G. (1993). “The contemporary theory of metaphor”. En A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202-250). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. y Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: Chicago Uni-versity Press.
Lakoff, G. y Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lamb, M. y Chemero, A. (2018). “Interacting in the open: Where dyna-mical systems become extended and embodied”. En A. Newen, L. De Bruin, y S. Gallagher (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of 4E cognition (pp. 147-162). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxford-hb/9780198735410.013.8
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Concept, image and symbol. The cognitive basis of gram-mar. Berlín/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Levinson, S. (1996). “Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Cross-linguistic evidence”. En P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, y M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 109-169). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levinson, S. (2006). Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cam-bridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Li, H. y Cao, Y. (2017). “Personal attitudes toward time: The relationship between temporal focus, spacetime mappings and real life experiences”. Scan-dinavian Journal of Psychology, 58(3), pp. 193-198. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12358
Li, H. y Cao, Y. (2018). “The hope of the future: The experience of pregnancy influences women’s implicit spacetime mappings”. The Journal of Social Psycho-logy, 158(2), pp. 152-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2017.1297289
Li, H. y Cao, Y. (2019). “Planning for the future: The relationship between conscientiousness, temporal focus and implicit space-time mappings”. Personality and Individual Differences, 141, pp. 111-116.
Li, H., Van Bui, Q. y Cao, Y. (2018). “One country, two cultures: Implicit space-time mappings in Southern and Northern Vietnamese”. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48, pp. 560-565.
Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and com-munication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338814
Lobo, L., Heras-Escribano, M. y Travieso, D. (2018). “The history and philosophy of ecological psychology”. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, p. 2228. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02228
Loeffler, J., Raab, M. y Cañal-Bruland, R. (2017). “Walking back to the future: The impact of walking backward and forward on spatial and tem-poral concepts”. Experimental Psychology, 64(5), pp. 346-358. https://doi.org /10.1027/1618 -3169/a0 0 0377
Lupyan, G. (2019). “Language as a source of abstract concepts: Comment on ‘Words as social tools: Language, sociality and inner grounding in abstract concepts’ by Anna M. Borghi et al.”. Physics of Life Reviews, 29, pp. 154-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2019.05.001
Mahon, B. y Caramazza, A. (2005). “The orchestration of the sensory-motor systems: Clues from neuropsychology”. Cognitive neuropsychology,22(3-4), pp. 480-494.
Mahon, B. y Caramazza, A. (2008). “A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content”. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 102(1), pp. 56-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.004
McGlone, M. S. (2007). “What is the explanatory value of a conceptual meta-phor?” Language y Communication, 27, pp. 109-126.
Meir, I. y Cohen, A. (2018). “Metaphor in sign languages”. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, p. 1025. https://doi.org/doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01025
Müller, C. (2008). Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking: A dynamic view. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Müller, C. (2019). “Metaphorizing as embodied interactivity: What gesturing and film viewing can tell us about an ecological view on metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(1), pp. 61-79.
Müller, C. y Kappelhoff, H. (2018). Cinematic metaphor: Experience – Affectivity – Temporality. Berlín/ Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
Musolff, A. (2012). “The study of metaphor as part of critical discourse analysis”. Critical Discourse Studies, 9(3), pp. 301-310.
Núñez, R., Cooperrider, K., Doan, D. T. and Wassmann, J. (2012). “Con-tours of time: Topographic construals of past, present, and future in the Yupno valley of Papua New Guinea”. Cognition, 124, pp. 25-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.007
Oppenheimer, D. y Trail, T. (2010). “Why leaning to the left makes you lean to the left: Effect of spatial Orientation on political attitudes”. Social Cognition, 28(5), pp. 651- 661. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2010.28.5.651
Ostarek, M. y Bottini, R. (2021). “Towards strong inference in research on embodiment—Possibilities and limitations of causal paradigms. Journal of Cognition, 4(1), p. 5. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.139
Pulvermüller, F. (2018). “Neural reuse of action perception circuits for language, concepts and communication”. Progress in Neurobiology, 160, pp. 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2017.07.001
Qian, L. (2016). “Metonymic-Based metaphor. A case study on the cognitive interpretation of heart in English and Chinese”. Higher Education Studies, 6(4), pp. 131-137.
Raczaszek-Leonardi, J., Nomikou, I., Rohlfing, K. J. y Deacon, T. W. (2018). “Language development from an ecological perspective: Ecologically valid ways to abstract symbols”. Ecological Psychology, 30(1), pp. 39-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2017.1410387
Radden, G. (2003). “How metonymic are metaphors?”. En R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 407-434). Berlín: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.3.407
Russell, R., Duchaine, B. y Nakayama, K. (2009). “Super-recognizers: People with extraordinary face recognition ability”. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(2), pp. 252-257. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.252
Shapiro, L. (2019). Embodied cognition. New York: Routledge.
Steen, G. (2017). “Deliberate Metaphor Theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues”. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1), pp. 1-24.
Stoljar, D. (2021). “Physicalism”. En E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/physicalism/
Taylor, C. y Dewsbury, B. (2018). “On the problem and promise of metaphor use in science and science communication”. Journal of Microbiology y Biology Education, 19(1), pp. 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1538
Thelèn, E. y Smith, L. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Watson, C., Cardillo, E., Ianni, G. y Chatterjee, A. (2013). “Action concepts in the brain: An activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis”. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(8), pp. 1191-1205. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00401
Wichert, A. (2021). “Quantum cognition and the mind”. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Consciousness, 8(1), p. 2150001. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2705078521500016Winter, B. (2019). “Synaesthetic metaphors are neither synaesthetic nor metaphorical”. En L. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque, y A. Majid (Eds.), Perception metaphors (pp. 105-126). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Wurm, M. F. y Caramazza, A. (2019). “Distinct roles of temporal and fronto-parietal cortex in representing actions across vision and language”. Nature Communications, 10(1), p. 289. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-08084-y
Yee, E. (2019). “Abstraction and concepts: When, how, where, what and why?”. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(10), pp. 1257-1265. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1660797
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2021 Semas
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Aquellos autores que tengan publicaciones con esta revista aceptan los términos siguientes:
- Los autores garantizarán a la revista el derecho de primera publicación de su obra, el cual estará simultáneamente sujeto a la Licencia de reconocimiento de Creative Commons que permite a terceros compartir la obra bajo los mismos acuerdos en que está formulada la Licencia que se especifica, siempre que se indique su autor y su primera publicación en esta revista.
- Los autores podrán adoptar otros acuerdos de licencia no exclusiva de distribución de la versión de la obra publicada siempre que se indique la publicación inicial en esta revista.
- Se permite y recomienda a los autores la difusión de su obra a través de Internet, lo cual podría producir intercambios interesantes y aumentaría las citas de la obra publicada.
Los trabajos publicados en Semas. Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada se publican bajo los términos que se indican en la Licencia de Creative Commons con la Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4).
