1887
image of Body part metaphors in phraseological expressions
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The paper addresses the employment of body part nouns in the creation of phraseological expressions of some European languages, a topic at the crossroads of language, cognition and culture. In particular, the contrastive analysis explores the common linguistic representation of meanings through body part metaphorical expressions in Italian, French, Spanish and English. While several efforts to gauge the existence of a “European linguistic type” (cf. ) have been largely devoted to the study of grammatical structures, a systematic account of the lexical component of the major European languages has not been attempted yet. Among the lexical units, phraseological expressions (e.g. compounds, multiword units, idiomatic expressions, as well as light verb and light noun constructions) represent a relevant ground to inquire into, since they are the most transparent and authentic vehicle of common ideas and experiences gradually rooted in European communicative realities.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lic.21006.gan
2022-08-26
2022-12-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bazzanella, C.
    2014Linguistica cognitiva. Un’introduzione. Bari: Laterza.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Benigni, V., Ramusino Cotta, P., Mollica, F. and Schafroth, E.
    2015 How to Apply CxG to Phraseology: A Multilingual Research Project. Journal of Social Sciences11(3): 275–288. 10.3844/jssp.2015.275.288
    https://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2015.275.288 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bosque, I.
    2004REDES. Diccionario combinatorio del español contemporáneo. Madrid: Ediciones SM.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2006Práctico. Diccionario combinatorio práctico del español contemporáneo. Madrid: Ediciones SM.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bybee, J. L.
    2010Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  6. Casadei, F.
    1995 Per una definizione di «espressione idiomatica» e una tipologia dell’idiomatico in italiano. Lingua e stileXXX(2): 335–358.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2003Lessico e semantica. Roma: Carocci.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Crystal, D.
    1995The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. De Knop, S.
    2021 The integration of frequency dimensions and lexicalization preferences in contrastive analysis. Paper presented at theInternational Contrastive Linguistics Conference (ICLC9), Italy, 13–15 May 2021.
  10. Detges, U. and Waltereit, R.
    2002 Grammaticalization vs. Reanalysis: A Semantic-Pragmatic Account of Functional Change in Grammar. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft21: 151–195. 10.1515/zfsw.2002.21.2.151
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsw.2002.21.2.151 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dobrovol’skij, D. O. and Piirainen, E.
    2005Figurative Language: Cross-Cultural and Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Evans, N.
    2010 Semantic Typology. InThe Oxford Handbook of Typology, J. J. Sung (ed.), 504–533. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199281251.013.0024
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199281251.013.0024 [Google Scholar]
  13. Feldweg, H. and Breidt, E.
    1996 COMPASS. An Intelligent Dictionary System for Reading Text in a Foreign Language. InPapers in Computational Lexicography: COMPLEX ’96, F. Kiefer, G. Kiss and J. Pajzs (eds). Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ganfi, V. and Piunno, V.
    2017 Preposizioni complesse in italiano antico e contemporaneo. Grammaticalizzazione, schematismo e produttività. Archivio Glottologico ItalianoCII (2): 184–204.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2019 Costruzioni a verbo supporto con nomi di parti del corpo in italiano antico e contemporaneo. InVerbi supporto, fenomeni e teorie, A. Pompei and L. Mereu (eds), 187–222. Munich: Lincom.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gargett, A. and Barnden, J.
    2015 Gen-Meta: Generating Metaphors by Combining AI and Corpus-Based Modeling. Web Intelligence13(2): 103–114. 10.3233/WEB‑150313
    https://doi.org/10.3233/WEB-150313 [Google Scholar]
  17. Glynn, D. and Fischer, K.
    (eds) 2010Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven Approaches. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226423
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226423 [Google Scholar]
  18. Goddard, C.
    2002 Whorf meets Wierzbicka: Variation and Universals in Language and Thinking. Language Sciences25(4): 393–432. 10.1016/S0388‑0001(03)00002‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(03)00002-0 [Google Scholar]
  19. Goldberg, A.
    2006Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Grezka, A.
    2021 Variabilité et traitement automatique des langues. Lingvisticæ Investigationes43(2): 280–299. 10.1075/li.00050.gre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00050.gre [Google Scholar]
  21. Haspelmath, M.
    2001 The European Linguistic Area: Standard Average European. InLanguage Typology and Language Universals, M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher and W. Raible (eds), 1492–1510. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110171549.2.14.1492
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110171549.2.14.1492 [Google Scholar]
  22. Heine, B. and Kuteva, T.
    2002Word Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613463
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613463 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hopper, P. J. and Traugott, E. C.
    2003Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  24. Jackson, H. and Zé Amvela, E.
    2007Words, Meaning and Vocabulary. An Introduction to Modern English Lexicology. London: Continuum International. 10.5040/9781350934047
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350934047 [Google Scholar]
  25. Jakubíček, M., Kilgarriff, A., Kovář, V., Rychlý, P. and Suchomel, V.
    2013 The TenTen Corpus Family. Proceedings of the Seventh International Corpus Linguistics Conference (CL 2013). Lancaster, United Kingdom, 23–26 July 2013. 125–127.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kay, P.
    1992 At least. InFrames, Fields, and Contrasts, A. Lehrer, E. Feder Kittay and R. Lehrer (eds), 309–331. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P. and Suchomel, V.
    2014 The Sketch Engine: Ten Years on. Lexicography1: 7–36. 10.1007/s40607‑014‑0009‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9 [Google Scholar]
  28. Konecny, C.
    2018 Valenza e coesione collocazionale: osservazioni su alcuni punti di intersezione tra due fenomeni interrelati. InLa grammatica delle valenze, S. Dallabrida and P. Cordin (eds), 143–161. Firenze: Franco Casati Editore.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M., Vanhove, M. and Koch, P.
    2007 Typological Approaches to Lexical Semantics. Linguistic Typology11: 159–185. 10.1515/LINGTY.2007.013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LINGTY.2007.013 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kovecses, Z.
    2000Metaphor and Emotion: Language, Culture, and Body in Human Feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Krzeszowski, T. P.
    1981 Quantitative Contrastive Equivalence. Studia Linguistica35: 102–113. 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.1981.tb00704.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.1981.tb00704.x [Google Scholar]
  32. Langacker, R. W.
    2008Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M.
    1980Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 1999Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind & its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Le Fur, D.
    2008Dictionnaire des combinaisons de mots: les synonymes en contexte. Paris: Le Robert.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Lehmann, C.
    [1982]1995Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Lindquist, H. and Levin, M.
    2008 Foot and Mouth. The Phrasal Patterns of two Frequent Nouns. InPhraseology. An Interdisciplinary Perspective, S. Granger and F. Meunier (eds), 143–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.139.15lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.139.15lin [Google Scholar]
  38. 2018Corpus Linguistics and the Description of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Lo Cascio, V.
    2013Dizionario Combinatorio Italiano. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.178
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.178 [Google Scholar]
  40. Mellado Blanco, C.
    1999 La metáfora en la formación de fraseologismos alemanes y españoles: las metáforas locales. Paremia8: 333–338.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2004Fraseologismos somáticos del alemán. Un estudio léxico-semántico. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 2020 Esquemas fraseológicos y construcciones fraseológicas en el contínuum léxico-gramática. InClases y categorías en la fraseología española, C. Sinner, E. Tabares Plasencia and E. T. Montoro del Arco (eds), 13–36. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2020 Nuevas aportaciones de la Gramática de Construcciones a los estudios de fraseología en las lenguas románicas. Romanica Olomucensia32(1): 1–12. 10.5507/ro.2020.011
    https://doi.org/10.5507/ro.2020.011 [Google Scholar]
  44. Michaelis, L. A.
    2019 Constructions are Patterns and so are Fixed Expressions. InPatterns in Language and Linguistics, B. Busse and R. Möhlig-Falke (eds), 193–220. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110596656‑008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110596656-008 [Google Scholar]
  45. Mogorrón Huerta, P., Grezka, A. and Navarro-Brotons, L.
    2021 Les variations diatopiques dans les expressions figées. Lingvisticæ Investigationes43(2): 169–171. 10.1075/li.00044.int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00044.int [Google Scholar]
  46. Mol, S.
    2004 Head and Heart: Metaphors and Metonymies in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. InTranslation and Corpora, K. Aijmer and H. Hasselgård (eds), 87–112. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Panther, K. U. and Thornburg, L. L.
    2007 Metonymy. InHandbook of Cognitive Linguistics, D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens (eds), 236–263. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Peirsman, Y. and Geeraerts, D.
    2006 Metonymy as a Prototypical Category. Cognitive Linguistics17(3): 269–316. 10.1515/COG.2006.007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.007 [Google Scholar]
  49. Piirainen, E.
    2008 Figurative Phraseology and Culture. InPhraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, S. Granger and F. Meunier (eds), 207–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.139.20pii
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.139.20pii [Google Scholar]
  50. 2012Widespread Idioms in Europe and Beyond: Toward a Lexicon of Common Figurative Units. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑1‑4539‑0845‑7
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-1-4539-0845-7 [Google Scholar]
  51. Piunno, V.
    2018Sintagmi preposizionali con funzione aggettivale e avverbiale. Munich: Lincom.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Piunno, V. and Ganfi, V.
    2019 Usage-Based Account of Italian Complex Prepositions Denoting the Agent. Revue Romane54(1): 141–175. 10.1075/rro.00019.piu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rro.00019.piu [Google Scholar]
  53. 2021 Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis of Prepositional Multiword Modifiers across Romance Languages. Lingvisticae Investigationes43(2): 352–379. 10.1075/li.00054.piu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00054.piu [Google Scholar]
  54. Ruthrof, H.
    2000The Body in Language. London: The Cassell Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Savary, A., Sailer, M., Parmentier, Y., Rosner, M., Rosén, V., Przepiórkowski, V., Krstev, C., Vincze, V., Wójtowicz, B., Losnegaard, G., Parra Escartín, C., Waszczuk, J., Constant, M., Osenova, P., Sangati, F.
    2015 PARSEME–PARSing and Multiword Expressions within a European Multilingual Network. Proceeding of the Seventh Language & Technology Conference (LTC ’15). Poznań, Poland, 27–29 November 2015. 27–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Schafroth, E.
    2020 Fraseologismi a schema fisso – basi teoriche e confronto linguistico. Romanica Olomucensia32(1): 173–200. 10.5507/ro.2020.009
    https://doi.org/10.5507/ro.2020.009 [Google Scholar]
  57. Simone, R.
    2007 Constructions and Categories in Verbal and Signed Languages. InVerbal and Signed Languages. Comparing Structures, Constructs, and Methodologies, E. Pizzuto, P. Pietrandrea and R. Simone (eds), 198–252. Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Simone, R. and Masini, M.
    2007 Support Nouns and Verbal Features: A Case Study from Italian. Verbum29(1): 143–172.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Simone, R. and Piunno, V.
    2017 Combinazioni che costituiscono entrata. Rappresentazione lessicografica e aspetti lessicologici. Studi e saggi linguistici55(2): 13–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Sinclair, J.
    1999 A Way with Common Words. InOut of Corpora. Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson, H. Hasselgård and S. Oksefjell (eds), 157–179. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Stubbs, M.
    2007 Quantitative Data on Multi-Word Sequences in English: The Case of the Word World. InText, Discourse and Corpora, M. Hoey, M. Mahlberg, M. Stubbs and W. Teubert (eds), 163–189. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Steyer, K.
    (ed.) 2018PREPCON. Präposition-Nomen-Verbindungen im Kontext. Ein Blick in die Projektwerkstatt. Teil II. SDS-Bd. Sprachliche Verfestigung. Wortverbindungen, Muster, Phrasem-Konstruktionen. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G.
    2013Constructionalization and Constructional Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  64. Wierzbicka, A.
    2007 Bodies and their Parts: An NSM Approach to Semantic Typology. Language Sciences29: 14–65. 10.1016/j.langsci.2006.07.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2006.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  65. Zipf, G. K.
    1965[1949]Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. New York: Hafner.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lic.21006.gan
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.21006.gan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error