1887
Volume 20, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X

Abstract

Abstract

The present study investigates the meaning construction emerging from figurative constructions involving and in Modern Greek. The study concerns authentic language data retrieved from a corpus search. Analysis takes into consideration the embodiment hypothesis, the development of chained metonymies and the interaction of metaphor and metonymy as the motivation for the usage patterns under investigation. The constructions analyzed reveal that the sense of vision is prioritized over hearing. Furthermore, constructional parameters of meaning show how and are perceived in MG language and culture. is attributed the agent role in the constructions, while is the entity acted upon. Moreover, e are mainly perceived as reflections of different dimensions of the selfhood, while are perceived as containers. A broader polysemy thus emerges for the than for the .

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00113.tho
2022-12-08
2024-05-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/rcl.00113.tho.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00113.tho&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Athanasiadou, A.
    (2014) Metaphors and metonymies for the (conceptualization and expression of the) state of no emotion in English and Greek. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 27(1), 1–22. 10.1075/resla.27.1.01ath
    https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.27.1.01ath [Google Scholar]
  2. Barcelona, A.
    (2002) Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within Cognitive Linguistics: An update. InR. Dirven & R. Porings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.207–277). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.207
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.207 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2007) The role of metonymy in meaning construction at discourse level. InG. Radden, K-M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp.51–75). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.136.06bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.06bar [Google Scholar]
  4. (2010) Metonymic inferencing and second language acquisition. InJ. Littlemore & C. Juchem-Grundmann (Eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics in second language learning and teaching. AILA Review, 231, 134–154. 10.1075/aila.23.08bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.23.08bar [Google Scholar]
  5. (2011) Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. InR. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp.7–57). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.02bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.02bar [Google Scholar]
  6. Bergen, B.
    (2015) Embodiment. InE. Dabrovska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.10–30). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110292022‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-002 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cienki, A.
    (2007) Frames, Idealized Cognitive Models, and Domains. InD. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens. (Eds), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.170–187). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Croft, W.
    (1993) The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(4), 335–370. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.4.335
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.4.335 [Google Scholar]
  9. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  10. Deignan, A.
    (2005) Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.6 [Google Scholar]
  11. Deignan, A., & Potter, L.
    (2004) A corpus study of metaphors and metonymies in English and Italian. Journal of Pragmatics, 361, 1231–1252. 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  12. Foolen, A.
    (2017) The hand in figurative thought and language. InA. Athanasiadou (Ed.). Studies in figurative thought and language (pp.179–198). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.56.07foo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.56.07foo [Google Scholar]
  13. Gibbs, R. W. Jr.
    (1999) Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world. InR. W. Jr. Gibbs, & G. J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.145–166). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.175.09gib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.175.09gib [Google Scholar]
  14. (2005) Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511805844
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805844 [Google Scholar]
  15. Goldberg, A.
    (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Goossens, L.
    (1995) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in figurative expressions for linguistic action. InL. Goossens, P. Pawels, B. Rudzka-Ostyn, A. M. Simon-Vandenbergen & J. Vanparys (Eds), By word of mouth: Metaphor, metonymy and linguistic action in a cognitive perspective (pp.159–174). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.33.06goo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.33.06goo [Google Scholar]
  17. Grady, J.
    (2007) Metaphor. InD. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.188–213). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Granger, S., & Paquot, M.
    (2008) Disentangling the phraseological web. InS. Granger, & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: an interdisciplinary perspective (pp.27–49). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.139.07gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.139.07gra [Google Scholar]
  19. Hilpert, M.
    (2006) Keeping an eye on the data: Metonymies and their pattern. InA. Stefanowitch & S. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp.123–151). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (2007) Chained metonymies in lexicon and grammar. A cross – linguistic perspective on body part terms. InG. Radden, K. M. Köpke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp.77–98). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.136.07hil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.07hil [Google Scholar]
  21. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kӧvecses, Z.
    (2010) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kraska-Szlenk, I.
    (2014) Semantic extension of body part terms: Common patterns and their interpretation. Language Sciences, 441, 15–39. 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lakoff, G.
    (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. InA. Ortony (Εd.), Metaphor and thought (pp.202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lindquist, H., & Levin, M.
    (2008) Foot and mouth: The phrasal patterns of two frequent nouns. InS. Granger & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp.143–158). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.139.15lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.139.15lin [Google Scholar]
  27. Littlemore, J., & Taylor, J.
    (2014) Introduction. InJ. Littlemore & J. Taylor (Εds.), The Bloomsbury companion to Cognitive Linguistics (pp.1–26). London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Marmaridou, S.
    (2006) On the conceptual, cultural and discursive motivation of Greek pain lexicalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 393–434. 10.1515/COG.2006.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.012 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2010) Cognitive, cultural, and constructional motivations of polysemy and semantic change: The case of the Greek ψυχή. Pragmatics and Cognition, 18(1), 68–110. 10.1075/pc.18.1.04mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.18.1.04mar [Google Scholar]
  30. (2011) The relevance of embodiment to lexical and collocational meaning: The case of prosopo ‘face’ in Modern Greek. InA. Zouheir & N. Yu (Εds.), Embodiment via body parts: Studies from various languages and cultures (pp.23–40). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.31.05mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.31.05mar [Google Scholar]
  31. Mel΄čuk, I.
    (1998) Collocations and lexical functions. InA. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications (pp.23–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Niemeier, S.
    (2000) Straight from the heart – metonymic and metaphorical explorations. InA. Barcelona (Εd.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp.196–213). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Oakley, T.
    (2007) Image schemas. InD. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Εds), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. (pp.214–235). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Panther, K. W., & Thornburg, L.
    (2007) Metonymy. InD. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Εds), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.236–263). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Radden, G.
    (2002) How metonymic are metaphors?InR. Dirven & R. Porings (Εds), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (pp.407–434). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.407
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.407 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2018) Molly married money: Reflections on conceptual metonymy. InO. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical and descriptive issues (pp.161–182). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.60.06rad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.06rad [Google Scholar]
  37. Rohrer, T.
    (2007) Embodiment and experientialism. InD. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. (pp.25–47). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2000) The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. InA. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp.109–132). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera-Masegosa, A.
    (2011) Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value, 3(1), 1–29. 10.6035/LanguageV.2011.3.2
    https://doi.org/10.6035/LanguageV.2011.3.2 [Google Scholar]
  40. Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2006) Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. InA. Stefanowitch & S. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp.1–16). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Sweetser, E.
    (1990) From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  42. Theodoropoulou, M.
    (2012) Metaphor-metonymies of joy and happiness in Greek. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 10(1), 156–183. 10.1075/rcl.10.1.05the
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.10.1.05the [Google Scholar]
  43. Θώμου, Π.
    (2008) Η μεταφορά (metaphor) στην Ονοματική Φράση (ΕΠΙΘΕΤΟ + ΟΥΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΟ). ΑΡΙΑΔΝΗ141, 273–291. [Thomou, P. (2008) Metaphor in the Noun Phrase (ADJECTIVE + NOUN). ARIADNE141, 273–291] (in Greek).
    [Google Scholar]
  44. (2010) Εκδοχές της μεταφοράς (metaphor) σε σχολικά βιβλία και η κατανόησή τους από μαθητές, Αριάδνη, 161, 217–238. [Thomou, P. (2010) Comprehension of options of Metaphor in Schoolbooks. ARIADNE, 161, 217–238] (in Greek).
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Thomou, P.
    (2013) Verbal collocations in Modern Greek and English: Common patterns. GLOSSOLOGIA, 211, 19–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. (2016) Metaphor and metonymy interaction patterns in Modern Greek. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 3(2), 300–316. 10.1075/cogls.3.2.06tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.3.2.06tho [Google Scholar]
  47. (2017) Conceptual and lexical aspects influencing metaphor realization in Modern Greek. InT. Georgakopoulos, T.-S. Pavlidou, M. Pechlivanos, A. Alexiadou, J. Androutsopoulos, A. Kalokerinos, S. Spopeteas & K. Stathi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Greek Linguistics (pp.993–1006). Edition Romiosini/CeMoG, Freie Universitat Berlin. (www.cemog.fu-berlin.de/en/icgl12/offprints/index.html)
    [Google Scholar]
  48. (2019) Locatives and their metaphorical conceptualization in multi-word units retrieved from a corpus search. InM. Chondrogianni, S. Courtenage, G. Horrocks, A. Arvaniti & I. Tsimpli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Greek Linguistics (pp.248–255). London: University of Westminster. (icgl13.westminster.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/55/2020/01/ICGL2013_Proceedings_final_optimised.pdf)
    [Google Scholar]
  49. (2020) Towards a constructional account of multi-word units in Modern Greek: a corpus-based study. InS. Markantonatou & A. Christofidou (Eds.), Multi-word expressions: Drawing on data from Modern Greek and other languages (pp.305–331). Athens: Academy of Athens.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Βελούδης, Γ.
    (2005) Η σημασία πριν, κατά και μετά τη γλώσσα. Αθήνα: Κριτική. [Veloudis, G. (2005) Meaning in and beyond language. Athens: Kritiki] (in Greek)
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Wray, A.
    (2002) Formulaic language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519772
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519772 [Google Scholar]
  52. Xioufis, T.
    (2017) The pattern of the metaphor within metonymy in the figurative language of romantic love in Modern Greek. InT.-S. Pavlidou, M. Pechlivanos, A. Alexiadou, J. Androutsopoulos, A. Kalokerinos, S. Spopeteas & K. Stathi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Greek Linguistics (pp.1275–1287) Edition Romiosini/CeMoG, Freie Universitat Berlin.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Yu, N.
    (2004) The eyes for sight and mind. Journal of Pragmatics, 361, 663–686. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(03)00053‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00053-5 [Google Scholar]
  54. (2008) Metaphor from body and culture. InR. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.247–261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.016
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.016 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00113.tho
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): construction; corpus-based study; culture; ear; embodiment; eye; Greek; metaphor; metonymy; polysemy; usage pattern
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