1887
Volume 19, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article presents an original three-component model of the linguistic sign. It shares with the established triadic models of Peirce (1955 [1897]) and Ogden and Richards (1923/1949) in identifying and as essential components; but differs in being linear, with and at opposite poles. It is argued that this arrangement reflects the way the components of the sign relate to reality and thereby serves well as an explanatory tool for linguistic research. The model is further modified at each of the ontological realms using concepts from cognitive linguistics, renamed and . The new model is employed as a research tool in two case studies: one illustrates its use in making sense of the complex field of language grammar; the other does the same for figurative language – metaphor and metonymy. The article’s conclusions include that interrogating established cornerstones of linguistic theory in the light of new theory can lead to the development of improved research tools.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00081.den
2021-04-28
2021-12-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Atkin, A.
    (2013) Peirce’s theory of signs. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/peirce-semiotics/ [accessed2 March 2020].
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Cameron, L.
    (2010) The discourse dynamics framework for metaphor. In L. Cameron & R. Maslen (Eds.), Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and humanities (pp.77–94). London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cameron, L. , & Maslen, R.
    (Eds.) (2010) Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and humanities. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Chomsky, N.
    (1957) Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783112316009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112316009 [Google Scholar]
  5. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cowie, A. P.
    (Ed.) (1998) Phraseology: Theory, analysis and application. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Croft, W.
    (1998) What (some) functionalists can learn from (some) formalists. In M. Darnell , E. Moravcsik , F. J. Newmeyer , M. Noonan & K. M. Wheatley (Eds.), Functionalism and formalism in linguistics, vol.1 (pp.87–110). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.41.06cro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.41.06cro [Google Scholar]
  8. (2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Deignan, A.
    (2005) Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.6 [Google Scholar]
  10. Denroche, C. T.
    (2015) Metonymy and language: A new theory of linguistic processing. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (2018) Text metaphtonymy: The interplay of metonymy and metaphor in discourse. Metaphor and the Social World, 8(1), 1–24. 10.1075/msw.16011.den
    https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.16011.den [Google Scholar]
  12. (2019) Employing cognitive metonymy theory in the analysis of semantic relations between source and target text in translation. Metaphor and the Social World, 9(2), 177–198. 10.1075/msw.18024.der
    https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.18024.der [Google Scholar]
  13. Fillmore, C. J.
    (2006 [1982]) Frame semantics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic readings (pp.373–400). Berlin & New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. Page references in the present article are to the 2006 work. 10.1515/9783110199901.373
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199901.373 [Google Scholar]
  14. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Halliday, M. A.
    (1973) Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (1976) Deep grammar: System as semantic choice. In G. R. Kress (Ed.), Halliday: System and function in language. Selected papers (pp.88–98). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (1978) Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (1985) An introduction to functional grammar (1st ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (1993) Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In M. A. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science; Literacy and discursive power (pp.69–85). London: The Falmer Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (1994) An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Harris, R.
    (1993) The linguistics wars. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hjelmslev, L. T.
    (1943/1953) Omkring sprogteoriens grundlkggelse (Danish text, Copenhagen, 1943). The 1953 English trans. by Francis Whitfield , Prolegomena to a theory of language (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press), was used in the present article.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Jakobson, R. O.
    (1968) Language in relation to other communication systems. InReports of the symposium on languages in society and in technique. Milan: Olivetti.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Johansen, J. D.
    (1993) Dialogic semiosis: An essay on signs and meaning. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kövecses, Z. , & Radden, G.
    (1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77. 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kress, G. R.
    (1976) Introduction. In G. R. Kress (Ed.), Halliday: System and function in language. Selected papers (pp.vii–xxi). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2010) Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kress, G. R. , & van Leeuwen, T.
    (1996) Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lakoff, G. P. , & Johnson, M. L.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Langacker, R. W.
    (1986) An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive Science10, 1–40. 10.1207/s15516709cog1001_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1001_1 [Google Scholar]
  31. (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (2005) Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp.101–159). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (2009) Metonymic grammar. In K. Panther , L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.45–71). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25.04lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.04lan [Google Scholar]
  34. (2013) Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Leech, G. N.
    (1969) A linguistic guide to English poetry. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Littlemore, J.
    (2015) Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107338814
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338814 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lyons, J.
    (1981) Language, meaning and context. Fontana Paperbacks.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Newmeyer, F. J.
    (1998) Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Nuyts, J.
    (2005) Brothers in arms? On the relations between cognitive and functional linguistics. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & M. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp.69–100). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Ogden, C. K. , & Richards, I. A.
    (1923/1949) The meaning of meaning (10th ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Panther, K. , & Thornburg, L. L.
    (2009) Introduction: On figuration in grammar. In K. Panther , L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.1–44). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25.03pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.03pan [Google Scholar]
  42. Peirce, C. S.
    (1955 [1897]) Logic as semiotic: The theory of signs. InJ. Buchler (Ed.), Philosophical writings of Peirce (pp.98–119). New York, NY: Dover.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Pragglejaz Group
    Pragglejaz Group (2007) MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. 10.1080/10926480709336752
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752 [Google Scholar]
  44. Radden, G.
    (2005) The ubiquity of metonymy. In J. Otal Campo , I. Navarro i Ferrando & B. Bellés Fortuña (Eds.), Cognitive and discourse approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp.11–28). Castello de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Radden, G. , & Dirven, R.
    (2007) Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clip.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.2 [Google Scholar]
  46. Radden, G. , & Kövecses, Z.
    (1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17–59). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad [Google Scholar]
  47. Saussure, F. de
    (1916) Cours de linguistique générale. Paris, France: Payot.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. (1916/1959) Course in general linguistics. English translation of Cours de linguistique générale (1916) by Wade Baskin . New York, NY: Philosophical Library.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. (1916/1983) Course in general linguistics. English translation of Cours de linguistique générale (1916) by Roy Harris . London: Duckworth.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Sinclair, J.
    (1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Steen, G. J.
    (2008) The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 213–241. 10.1080/10926480802426753
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480802426753 [Google Scholar]
  52. Whorf, B. L.
    (1956) Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Edited by John Carroll . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00081.den
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00081.den
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): construal; construction; grammar; metaphor; metonymy; ontological realms; reification; semiotics; the sign
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