1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association
  4. Volume 13, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 13, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper deals with the formal properties and discourse features of “A és com B” (“A is like B”) similes in Catalan. In contrast with most previous approaches, the examples are naturally-occurring and the whole text has been analyzed so that their context, and not only the similes, is considered. The analysis of similes in interaction puts forward that: (i) a simile is a three-slot comparative construction, including a target and a source belonging to different conceptual domains, and an optional but frequent and highly significant elaboration; (ii) a simile is a figurative comparison between a source and a target (grammatically expressed by noun phrases or clauses) generally considered completely distinct or non-comparable; (iii) similes are powerful mechanisms to catch the addressee’s attention and put in a nutshell someone’s opinion, and (iv) they tend to have a prominent text status and are often found as headlines.

© 2015 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.13.1.06cue
2015-06-23
2025-02-09

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rcl.13.1.06cue
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Addison, C
    (1993) From literal to figurative: An introduction to the study of simile. College English, 55(4), 402–419. doi: 10.2307/378650
     https://doi.org/10.2307/378650 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aisenman, R.A
    (1999) Structure mapping and simile-metaphor preference. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 14(1), 45–51. doi: 10.1207/s15327868ms1401_5
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1401_5 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bernárdez, E
    (2009) Comparaciones explícitas con wie en Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften, de Robert Musil: Una aproximación cognitiva. Revista de Filología Alemana, anejo I, 57–72. Available at: revistas.ucm.es/index.php/RFAL/article/view/RFAL0909220057A. Access: 2. 7.2012.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Black, M
    (1979) More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 19–43). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bowdle, B.F. , & Gentner, D
    (2005) The career of metaphor. Psychological Review,112(1), 193–216. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.112.1.193
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bredin, H
    (1998) Comparisons and similes. Lingua, 105, 67–78. doi: 10.1016/S0024‑3841(97)00030‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(97)00030-2 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chiappe, D. , & Kennedy, J
    (2000) Are metaphors elliptical similes?Journal of Pshycholinguistic Research,29(4), 371–398. doi: 10.1023/A:1005103211670
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005103211670 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2001) Literal bases for metaphor and simile. Metaphor and Symbol,16, 249–276. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2001.9678897
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678897 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chiappe, D. , Kennedy, J. , & Chiappe, P
    (2003) Aptness is more important than comprehensibility in preference for metaphors and similes. Poetics,31, 51–68. doi: 10.1016/S0304‑422X(03)00003‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-422X(03)00003-2 [Google Scholar]
  10. Coulson, S
    (2001) Semantic leaps: Frame shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511551352
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551352 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cuenca, M.J. , & Romano, M
    (2013) Similes in interaction: Beyond (metaphor and) compare. Paper presented at the 12th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference , Edmonton (Canada), June, 23rd–28th, 2013.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Dancygier, B. , & Sweetser, E
    (2014) Grammatical constructions and figurative meaning. InFigurative Language (pp. 127–161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Fillmore, C
    (1988) Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. In R. Dietrich & C.F. Graumann (Eds.), Language processing in social context (pp. 17–38). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Fromilhague, C
    (1995) Les figures de style. Paris: Nathan.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Gentner, D
    (1983) Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155– 170. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3 [Google Scholar]
  16. (1989) The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199–241). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511529863.011
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511529863.011 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gentner, D. , & Bowdle, B.F
    (2001) Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16 (3/4), 223–247 doi: 10.1080/10926488.2001.9678896
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678896 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gentner, D. , & Markman, A.B
    (1997) Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45–56. doi: 10.1037/0003‑066X.52.1.45
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.1.45 [Google Scholar]
  19. Glucksberg, S
    (2001) Understanding figurative language: From metaphor to idioms. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195111095.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195111095.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Glucksberg, S. , & Haught, C
    (2006) On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind & Language,21(3), 360–378. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2006.00282.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00282.x [Google Scholar]
  21. Glucksberg, S. , & Keysar, B
    (1990) Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review,97, 3–18. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.97.1.3
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  22. (1993) How metaphors work. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought, 2nd edition (pp. 401–424). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.020
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.020 [Google Scholar]
  23. Israel, M. , Riddle Harding, J. , & Tobin, V
    (2004) On simile. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.)Language, culture, and mind (pp. 123–135). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Moder, C.L
    (2008) It’s like making a soup: metaphors and similes in spoken news discourse. In A. Tyler , Y. Kim , & A. Takada (Eds.). Language in the context of use: Discourse and cognitive approaches to language (pp. 301–320). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. (2010)  Two puzzle pieces: Fitting discourse context and constructions into cognitive metaphor theory. English Text Construction, 3(2), 294–320. doi: 10.1075/etc.3.2.09mod
     https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.3.2.09mod [Google Scholar]
  26. (2012)  Two puzzle pieces: Fitting discourse context and constructions into cognitive metaphor theory. In B. Dancygier , J. Sanders , & L. Vandelanotte (Eds.)Textual choices in discourse: A view from Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 157–183). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/bct.40.09mod
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.40.09mod [Google Scholar]
  27. Ortony, A
    (Ed.) (1993) Metaphor and thought, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173865
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865 [Google Scholar]
  28. Pierini, P
    (2007) Simile in English: From description to translation. CÍRCULO de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación (clac), 29, 21–43. www.ucm.es/info/circulo/no29/pierini.pdf.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Romano, M
    . (in progress). Are metaphor and similes interchangeable? A case study in opinion discourse.
  30. Roncero, C. , Kennedy, J. , & Smyth, R
    (2006) Similes on the Internet have Explanations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,13(1), 74–77. Available at: www.utcs.utoronto.ca/~kennedy/Roncero-Kennedy-Smyth.pdf. doi: 10.3758/BF03193815
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193815 [Google Scholar]
  31. Sullivan, K
    (2009) Grammatical constructions in metaphoric language. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & K. Dziwirek (Eds.), Cognitive Corpus Linguistics (pp. 57–80). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. (2013) Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins doi: 10.1075/cal.14
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.14 [Google Scholar]
  33. Tversky, A
    (1977) Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.84.4.327
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327 [Google Scholar]
  34. Utsumi, A
    (2007) Interpretative diversity explains metaphor-simile distinction. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(4), 291–312. doi: 10.1080/10926480701528071
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480701528071 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.13.1.06cue
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): comparison; construction; interaction; metaphor; similes

Most Cited

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