Sensitivity to extralinguistic cues to identify generic and non-generic meaning

The authors are thankful to Anna Bakłażec who designed pictorial stimuli for the study.Generic sentences convey generalizations about kinds. In contrast, non-generics express facts about specific individuals or groups of individuals. However, to identify generic meaning, we have to integrate multiple cues. This study tested whether the discrepancy between the noun phrase and the number of objects (extralinguistic cues) present should force a generic interpretation whereas the match between the noun phrase and the number of objects present would give rise to a non-generic interpretation. Results demonstrated that adults are sensitive to the match and the mismatch situations in three out of four conditions tested. The data also indicate the importance of world knowledge cues in construing sentences as generic.The study was supported by the Erasmus Mundus Action 2 project Aurora II (2013-2521) grant to Karczewski.Daniel Karczewski: [email protected] Buivolova: [email protected] Karczewski holds a PhD in linguistics, and works in the Institute of Modern Languages at the University of Białystok. His research interests include: cognitive linguistics and psycholinguistics. He has recently published a book Generyczność w języku i w myśleniu. Studium kognitywne (Genericity in Language and Thought. A Cognitive Study).Olga Buivolova is an MA student in linguistic theory at the National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia. Her main research interests are neurolinguistics and neuropsychology.Daniel Karczewski - University of Białystok, PolandOlga Buivolova - National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, RussiaAkhutina, T. 2015. Luria’s classification of aphasias and its theoretical basis. Aphasiology, 30, 1–20. doi: 10.1080/02687038.2015.1070950Alda, M., Beyssade, C., and Del Prete, F. (eds.) 2012. Genericity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Brandone, A.C., and Gelman, S.A. 2009. Differences in preschoolers’ and adults’ use of generics about novel animals and artifacts: A window onto a conceptual divide. Cognition, 110(1), 1–22. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.08.005Carlson, Gregory N. 1980. Reference to Kinds in English. New York: Garland.Cimpian, A., Meltzer, T. J. and Markman, E. M. 2011. Preschoolers’ use of morphosyntactic cues to identify generic sentences: Indefinite singular noun phrases, tense, and aspect. Child Development, 82, 1561–1578. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01615.xCimpian, A., and Markman, E. M. 2008. Preschool children’s use of cues to generic meaning. Cognition, 107, 19–53. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.008Dąbrowska, E. 2012. “Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment”. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2:3, 219-253. doi: 10.1075/lab.2.3.01dabDayal, Veneeta. 2011. “Bare Noun Phrases”. In C. Maeinborn, K. von Heusinger and P. Portner (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, 33.2, 1087-1108.Dragoy, O., Bergelson, M., Iskra, E., Laurinavichyute, A., Mannova, E., Skvortsov, A., and Statnikov, A. 2015. Comprehension of reversible constructions in semantic aphasia. Aphasiology, 30, 1–22. doi: 10.1080/02687038.2015.1063582Ermolenko, S. S. 1987. Образные средства морфологии. Киев: Наукова думка.Gelman, S. A. 2003. The Essential Child. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Gelman, S. A. and Raman, L. 2003. Preschool children use linguistic form class and pragmatic cues to interpret generics. Child Development, 74, 308–325. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00537Gelman, S. A., Coley, J. D., Rosengren, K., Hartman, E., and Pappas, A. 1998. “Beyond labeling: The role of parental input in the acquisition of richly structured categories”. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 235, Vol. 63, No.1.Golovan, E. A. 2013. “Переносное значение формы единственного числа имен существительных и их нереферентное употребление”. In Akhmetova, M.N., Ivanova, U.V., Laktionov, K.S., Komogortsev, M.G., Akhmetova, V.V., Brezgin, V.S., Kotlyarov, A.V., and Yakhina, A.S. (eds.), Современная филология: материалы II международной научной конференции (Уфа, январь 2013 г.). Уфа: Лето, 62–64.Jespersen, O. 2002. Философия грамматики. Москва: Едиториал УРСС.Karczewski, D. 2016. Generyczność w języku i w myśleniu. Studium kognitywne. Kraków: Universitas.Krifka, M., Pelletier, F. J., Carlson, G. N., ter Meulen, A., Link, G., and Chierchia G. 1995. “Genericity: An Introduction”. In G. N. Carlson and F.J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1–124.Leslie, S.-J. 2007. Generics and the structure of the mind. Philosophical Perspectives, 21, 375–403. doi: 10.1111/j.1520-8583.2007.00138.xLeshkova, O. O. 1984. “К вопросу о функционально-семантической категории собирательности в русском и польском языках”. Советское славяноведение 5, 92–101.Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Pappas, A., and Gelman S. A. 1998. “Generic noun phrases in mother-child conversations”. Journal of Child Language 25, 19-33. doi: 10.1017/S0305000997003292Peirce, J. W. 2009. Generating stimuli for neuroscience using PsychoPy. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 2(10), 1–8. doi:10.3389/neuro.11.010.2008Shelyakin, M. A. 1985. “О функциональной модели форм числа существительных в русском языке”. In Ученые записки Тартуского государственного университета №719: Функциональные аспекты грамматики русского языка. Тарту: Издательство Тартуского университета, 3–22.4-1410 (3/2015)41

The Preoperative Microbial Detection is No Prerequisite for the Indication of Septic Revision in Cases of Suspected Periprosthetic Joint Infection

Aim of this study. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) require a special antimicrobial regimen, fundamentally different from an aseptic treatment, making a correct preoperative diagnosis essential. However, a successful preoperative microbe detection is not always possible. We wanted to find out (1) if a preoperative microbe detection is a prerequisite before starting a septic revision in suspected PJIs or if the preoperative diagnosis can solely be based on (para) clinical signs (persistent CRP >1 mg/dl, early X-ray loosening signs in the first 5 years, leucocytes joint aspiration >1700/mu l, conspicuous history, and clinical signs like redness, pain, hyperthermia, swelling, and loss of function); (2) if patients with and without preoperative microbe detection have a different outcome; and (3) if the microbial growth is the most important criterion of a multifactorial PJI definition. Methods. We included all first-line two-stage hip (49) and knee (47) revisions, performed in our department from 06/2013 on, with an available 2-year follow-up. A PJI was defined as one of the following four criteria: fistula or purulence, Krenn Morawietz type 2 or 3, joint aspirate >2000/mu l leukocytes or >70% granulocytes, and microbial growth. This multifactorial PJI definition was based on the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS). The standardized diagnostic algorithm is described in detail. Results. (1) 24 hip and 16 knee cases were treated without preoperative microbe detection solely on the basis of a (para) clinical diagnosis (see above). In the hip 91.6% (22 of 24 cases) showed an intraoperative microbe detection. In the knee, in 68.7% (11 of 16 cases) a microbe was detected intraoperatively and in 93.7% (15 of 16) at least one secure PJI criterion could be confirmed intraoperatively. (2) No statistical significant (p.517) difference between patients with (n = 56, reinfection rate 8.9%) and without (n = 40, 15%) preoperative microbe detection was found in a 2-year follow-up. (3) Microbial growth remains the overall (pre- and intraoperatively) most important criterion (hip 95.9%; knee 89.3%), followed by Krenn Morawietz for the intraoperative diagnosis (hip 67.3%, knee 48.9%), and joint aspiration for the knee and fistula for the hip, respectively, as preoperative criteria. Conclusion. High rates of intraoperatively fulfilled EBJIS PJI criteria show that a preoperative microbe detection is not necessary before intervening in suspected PJIs. The indication for a septic revision can solely be based on (para) clinical signs. The new established diagnostic algorithm based on a multifactorial PJI definition showed high precision in finding PJIs

Between Linguistics, Language Education and Acquisition Research. Introduction to the Special Issue Linguistics for Language Teaching and Learning

Elżbieta Awramiuk: [email protected] Karczewski: [email protected]żbieta Awramiuk is a professor of linguistics at the University of Białystok, Poland. Her research currently concentrates on knowledge about language in education, as well as on phonology and spelling in contemporary Polish. Since 2005, she has been collaborating with L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature, a Scopus indexed online peer-reviewed, multilingual journal. She is the founding member of ARLE (International Association for Research in L1 Education, formerly: IAIMTE) and she is engaged in the Special Interest Group Research Educational Linguistics (SIG EduLing). She has participated in several research projects focused on the early literacy development and assessment and linguistic aspects of learning to read and write.Daniel Karczewski is an Assistant Professor in the Institute of Modern Languages at the University of Białystok, Poland. He holds a PhD in cognitive linguistics. His current research interest include the generic overgeneralization effect and the phenomenon of normativity. He was the prize winner of the Polish Cognitive Linguistics Association competition for the best Ph.D. dissertation in cognitive linguistics in 2014. He has recently published a book Generyczność w języku i w myśleniu. Studium kognitywne (Genericity in Language and Thought. A Cognitive Study).Elżbieta Awramiuk - University of BiałystokDaniel Karczewski - University of BiałystokAndrews, R., Torgerson, C., Beverton, S., Freeman, A., Locke, T., Low, G., Robinson, A. & Zhu, D. 2006. The effect of grammar teaching on writing development. British Educational Research Journal 32(1): 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920500401997Apel, K. & Werfel, K. 2014. Using morphological awareness instruction to improve written language skills. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 45: 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1044/2014_LSHSS-14-0039Boivin M.C., Fontich X., Funke R., García-Folgado M.J. & Myhill D. 2018. Working on grammar at school in L1 education: Empirical research across linguistic regions. Introduction to the special issue. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature 18: 1–6.Bourassa, D. C. & Treiman, R. 2001. Spelling development and disability: the importance of linguistics factors. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools 32(3): 172–181.Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R. & Deacon, S. H. 2010. The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research 80(2): 144–179. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309359353Camps, A. & Fontich, X. 2019. Teachers’ concepts on the teaching of grammar in relation to the teaching of writing in Spain: A case study. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature. 19: 1-36. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2019.19.02.02Fontich, X. 2016. L1 grammar instruction and writing: Metalinguistic activity as a teaching and research focus. Language and Linguistics Compass 10(5): 238–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12184Goodwin, A. P. & Ahn, S. 2013. A meta-analysis of morphological interventions in English: Effects on literacy outcomes for school-age children. Scientific Studies of Reading 17(4): 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2012.689791Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S. & Harris, K.R. 2012. A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology 104(4): 879–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029185Graham, S. & Santangelo, T. 2014. Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review. Reading and Writing 27: 1703–1743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9517-0Hudson, R. 2004. Why education needs linguistics (and vice versa). Journal of Linguistics 40: 105–130.Kerge, K. (ed.). 2014. Studies in Language Acquisition, Learning, and Corpora. Proceedings of the Tallinn University Institute of Estonian Language and Culture 16. Tallinn: Tallinn University.Levin, I., Aram, D., Tolchinsky, L. & McBride, C. 2013. Maternal mediation of writing and children’s early spelling and reading: the Semitic abjad versus the European alphabet. Writing Systems Research 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/17586801.2013.797335Locke, T. (ed.). 2010. Beyond the grammar wars. A resource for teachers and students on developing language knowledge in the English/literacy classroom. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203854358Macken-Horarik, M., Love, K. & Unsworth, L. 2011. A grammatics ‘good enough’ for school English in the 21st century: Four challenges in realising the potential. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 34(1): 9-23.Milian, M. 2005. Reformulation: a means of constructing knowledge in shared writing. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature 5(3): 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10674-005-8560-9Morin, M. F. 2007. Linguistic factors and invented spelling in children: the case of French beginners in children. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature 7 (3): 173–189.Myhill, D. 2018. Grammar as a meaning making resource for language development. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature 18: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2018.18.04.04.Myhill, D.A., Jones, S.M., Lines, H. & Watson, A. 2012. Re-thinking grammar: the impact of embedded grammar teaching on students’ writing and students’ metalinguistic understanding. Research Papers in Education 27(2): 139–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2011.637640.Nupponen, A.-M.; Jeskanen, S. & Rättyä, K. 2019. Finnish student language teachers reflecting on linguistic concepts related to sentence structures: Students recognising linguistic concepts in L1 and L2 textbooks. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature 19: 1-25. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2019.19.02.04Rättyä, K., Awramiuk, E. & Fontich, X. 2019. What is Grammar Education Today? Introduction to EduLing special issue on grammar education. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature 19: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2019.19.02.01Ribas T., Fontich X. & Guasch O. (eds.). 2015. Grammar at School. Research on Metalinguistic Activity in Language Education. Brussels: Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0352-6490-6.Sénéchal, M., Ouellette, G., Pagan, S. & Lever, R. 2012. The role of invented spelling on learning to read in low-phoneme-awareness kindergartners: a randomized-control-trial study. Reading and Writing 25: 917–934. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9310-2Spolsky B. & Hult, F. (eds.). 2010. The Handbook of Educational Linguistics. Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.Štěpáník, S. 2019. Pupil preconception as a source of solutions to lingering problems of grammar teaching? L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature. 19: 1-24. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2019.19.02.05Unsworth, L. 2002. Reading grammatically: Exploring the ‘constructiveness’ of literary texts. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature 2(2): 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020847215689Uppstad, P.H. 2006. The dynamics of written language acquisition. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature 6(3): 63–83. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2006.06.01.04van Rijt, J. van, Wijnands, A. & Coppen, P.-A. 2019 (forthcoming). Dutch teacher beliefs on linguistic concepts and Reflective Judgement in grammar teaching. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature.Viise, N. M., Richards, H. C. & Pandis, M. 2011. Orthographic depth and spelling acquisition in Estonian and English: a comparison of two diverse alphabetic languages. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 55(4): 425–453.Watson, A. 2015. The Problem of Grammar Teaching: a case study of the relationship between a teacher’s beliefs and pedagogical practice. Language and Education 29(4): 332-346. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2015.1016955Werfel, K. L. & Schuele, C. M. 2012. Segmentation and representation of consonant blends in kindergarten children’s spellings. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 43: 292–307.24 (1/2019)51

Quantifying unobserved protein-coding variants in human populations provides a roadmap for large-scale sequencing projects

As new proposals aim to sequence ever larger collection of humans, it is critical to have a quantitative framework to evaluate the statistical power of these projects. We developed a new algorithm, UnseenEst, and applied it to the exomes of 60,706 individuals to estimate the frequency distribution of all protein-coding variants, including rare variants that have not been observed yet in the current cohorts. Our results quantified the number of new variants that we expect to identify as sequencing cohorts reach hundreds of thousands of individuals. With 500K individuals, we find that we expect to capture 7.5% of all possible loss-of-function variants and 12% of all possible missense variants. We also estimate that 2,900 genes have loss-of-function frequency of <0.00001 in healthy humans, consistent with very strong intolerance to gene inactivation.United States. National Institutes of Health (U54DK105566)United States. National Institutes of Health (R01GM104371

The Rhetoric of War in the Presidential Discourse of George W. Bush

Zdigitalizowano i udostępniono w ramach projektu pn. Rozbudowa otwartych zasobów naukowych Repozytorium Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku, dofinansowanego z programu „Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki” Ministra Edukacji i Nauki na podstawie umowy SONB/SP/512497/2021.University of BialystokCHILTON P. (2001) Notes on 11 September 2001 [Online] Available: http://www.watsoninstitute.org/infopeace/911/chilton_discourse.htmlFORD P. (2001) Crusade: A Freudian Slip? Europe Cringes at President Bush's 'Crusade' Against Terrorists [Online] Available: http://www.crescentlife.com/heal%20the%20world/crusade_a_freudian_slip.htmGILL A. M. and K. WHEDBEE (1997) Rhetoric. In van Dijk, T.A., 1997. Vol. 1. 157 - 181.HOOVER J. (2001) Rhetorical Theory [Online] Available: http://hyper.vcsun.org/HyperNews/battias/gett/cs327/s02/thought/18.html?nogifsKOCHIS B. (2001) Framing September 11 [Online] Available: http://northonline.seed.ctc.edu/dayoflearning/Framing.htmlLAKOFF G., 2001. Metaphors of Terror [Online] Available: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/News/911lakoff.htmlMerriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Deluxe Edition. (1998) MERRIAM-WEBSTER, INCORPORATED.40541

Public speaking as a type of discourse in teacher education

Zdigitalizowano i udostępniono w ramach projektu pn. Rozbudowa otwartych zasobów naukowych Repozytorium Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku – kontynuacja, dofinansowanego z programu „Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki” Ministra Edukacji i Nauki na podstawie umowy BIBL/SP/0040/2023/01.Uniwersytet w BiałymstokuAjnenkiel, A., [1978] Od rządów ludowych do przewrotu majowego. Zarys dziejów politycznych Polski 1918-1939. Warszawa, Państwowe Wydawnictwo „Wiedza Powszechna”.Bailey, D. ed., [1965] Essays on Rhetoric, Edited by Dudley Bailey. New York: Oxford University Press.Britannica CD 2000 Deluxe Edition 1994-2000, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.Gill, A.M. and K. Whedbee, [1997] Rhetoric. In van Dijk, T.A., 1997. Vol. 1. 157-181.Leith, D. and G. Myerson, [1989] The Power ofAddress. Explorations in Rhetoric. London, New York: Routledge.Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary Deluxe Edition. [1998] Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.Wilson, J.F. and C.C. Arnold, [1974] Public Speaking as a Liberal Art. 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.9778

Intensywny program kształcenia metodycznego w Iranie

Uniwersytet w BiałymstokuKeddie N., Współczesny Iran, Kraków 2007.http://www.britishcouncil.org/iran-discover-iran-education-report.doc.http://www2.unesco.org/wef/countryreports/iran/rapport_1.html.http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran.12535

Foreign Language Pedagogy in the Light of Cognitive Linguistics Research (Series Second Language Learning and Teaching), edited by Grzegorz Drożdż and Barbara Taraszka-Drożdż, Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2020, 131pp. ISBN: 978-3-030-58774-1. EUR 48.14

[email protected] Karczewski - is an Associate Professor in the Center for Linguistic Studies at the University of Białystok, Poland. He was the prize winner of the Polish Cognitive Linguistics Association competition for the best Ph.D. dissertation in cognitive linguistics in 2014. He is the author of Generyczność w języku i w myśleniu. Studium kognitywne (Genericity in Language and Thought. A Cognitive Study). His current research interests include the generic overgeneralization effect and the phenomenon of normativity.University of Białystok, PolandAchard, M. 2018. Teaching usage and concepts: Toward a cognitive pedagogical grammar. In: A. Tyler, H. Lihong, & H. Jan (eds.), What is applied cognitive linguistics? Answers from SLA research, 37-62. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Boers, F. 2011. Cognitive Semantic ways of teaching figurative phrases: An assessment. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9(1): 227-261. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.1.11boeBoers, F. 2013. Cognitive Linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary: Assessment and integration. Language Teaching 46(2): 208-224. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000450Drożdż, G., & Taraszka-Drożdż, B. (eds.). 2020. Foreign Language Pedagogy in the Light of Cognitive Linguistics Research. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Fauconnier, G. 1985. Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge (United Kingdom)/New York/Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar:Vol.1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Langacker, R. W. 2008. The relevance of Cognitive Grammar for language pedagogy. In: S. De Knop & T. De Rycker (eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar, 7-35. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Littlemore, J. 2009. Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Second Language Learning and Teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Luo, H. 2021. Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. In: X. Wen & J. R. Taylor (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 556-567. New York/London: Routledge.Paivio, A. 1986. Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Pütz, M. 2007. Cognitive linguistics and applied linguistics. In: D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 1139-1159. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Soffritti, M., & Dirven, R. 2004. Comparing languages: Language classification, typology, and contrastive linguistics. In: R. Dirven & M. Verspoor (eds.), Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics, 231-268. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Tyler, A. 2017. Second language acquisition. In: B. Dancygier (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 73-90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Tyler, A., Mueller, C. M., & Ho, V. 2010. Applying cognitive linguistics to instructed L2 learning: The English modals. AILA Review 23 (December 2010), 30-49. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.23.03tyl35 (4/2021)576

Editorial

31 (4/2020)5

Introduction to the Special Issue The Social Impact of Metaphor: Cross-Cultural and Linguistic Perspectives (STUDIES IN COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS 4)

Justyna Wawrzyniuk: [email protected] Wawrzyniuk, Ph.D., is a lecturer at the University of Białystok, Poland. Her research interests focus on the creativity of figurative language as a means of shaping identity. She is an author of several articles and currently serves as the Principal Investigator in a two-year National Science Centre (Poland) research project on constructing gender identity through metaphors.Daniel Karczewski, an Assistant Professor in the Department of English Linguistics at the University of Białystok, Poland, holds a Ph.D. in Cognitive Linguistics. His research explores the generic overgeneralization effect and normativity in language. He received an award from the Polish Cognitive Linguistics Association for the best Ph.D. dissertation in cognitive linguistics in 2014 and authored Generyczność w języku i w myśleniu: Studium kognitywne (Genericity in Language and Thought: A Cognitive Study).Justyna Wawrzyniuk - University of Białystok, PolandDaniel Karczewski - University of Białystok, PolandDalpanagioti, T. 2023. Developing productive metaphoric competence through a frame-inspired task-based teaching model. Crossroads. A Journal of English Studies 43: 33–56.Gibbs, R. W. 2017. Metaphor Wars: Conceptual Metaphors in Human Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Järve, K. & Kerremans, K. 2023. Challenges and procedures in transferring fully metaphorical terms in the EU’s multilingual institutional setting. Crossroads. A Journal of English Studies 43: 11–32.Latané, B. 1981. The Psychology of Social Impact. American Psychologist 36(4): 343–356.Paliichuk, E. 2023. A spiderweb of human trafficking: An empirical linguistic study. Crossroads. A Journal of English Studies 43: 124–155.Reali, F., & Avellaneda, L. 2023. Feminists are warriors: Framing effects of war metaphors. Crossroads. A Journal of English Studies 43: 103–123.Semino, E. 2021, July 5. Fire, waves and warfare: The way we make sense of Covid. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/05/fire-waves-and-war-fare-the-way-we-make-sense-of-covidTurner, S., Littlemore, J., Taylor, J., Parr, E., & Topping, A. 2022. Metaphors that shape parents’ perceptions of effective communication with healthcare practitioners following child death: a qualitative UK study. BMJ open 12(1), Article e054991. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054991Yerznkyan, Y., & Movsisyan, D. 2023. Understanding and evaluation: A cross-linguistic study of the evaluative collocates of English and Armenian verbs of understanding. Crossroads. A Journal of English Studies 43: 156–180.202361