1887
Volume 33, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0213-2028
  • E-ISSN: 2254-6774
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Resumen

El principal objetivo del artículo es describir el carácter polisémico del término cromático español y presentar esta unidad léxica como una categoría radial constituida por diferentes sentidos relacionados entre sí, así como también destacar el papel protagonista de la metonimia tanto en la motivación como en la conexión de los sentidos. El estudio se estructura de la siguiente manera: (i) exposición de las principales características de la semántica cognitiva y su concepción de la polisemia (ii) descripción de la motivación de cada una de las extensiones semánticas asociadas al término cromático, y (iii) trazado de la red radial del término que lo estructura como categoría polisémica y presentación de la relación que se establece entre ellas a partir de la metonimia y la metáfora. Para llevar a cabo la investigación se ha aplicado una metodología basada en corpus que permite obtener muestras de uso real del término cromático, así como acceder a la información lingüística y contextual que interviene en la activación y distinción de sentidos. En cuanto a la motivación y relación entre ellos, el estudio se realiza de acuerdo a la TCMM.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/resla.18028.sot
2021-02-10
2021-05-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Atkins, B. T. S.
    (1987) Semantic ID tags: corpus evidence for dictionary senses. EnProceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the UW Centre for the New Oxford English Dictionary, 17–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barcelona, A.
    (Ed.) (2000) Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (2002) Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update. En R. Dirven y R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.207–77). Berlin and Nueva York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.207
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.207 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2003) Metonymy in cognitive linguistics. An analysis and a few modest proposals. En H. Cuyckens , Th. Berg , R. Dirven y K. U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (pp.223–55). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.243.15bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.15bar [Google Scholar]
  5. (2005) The Multilevel Operation of Metonymy in Grammar and Discourse, with Particular Attention to Metonymyc Chains. En F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza y S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction (pp.313–352). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (2009) Motivation of construction meaning and form. The roles of metonymy and inference. En K. U. Panther , L. L. Thornburg y A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.363–401). Amsterdam and Filadelfia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25.22bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.22bar [Google Scholar]
  7. (2011) Reviewing the properties of metonymy as a technical construct, with particular attention to the view of metonymy as a prototype category. En R. Benczes , A. Barcelona y F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds), Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a Consensus View (pp.7–57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.02bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.02bar [Google Scholar]
  8. (2012) La metonimia conceptual. En I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano y J. Valenzuela (Eds.), Lingüística cognitiva (pp.123–146). Barcelona: Anthropos.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Barnden, J.
    (2010) Metaphor and metonymy. Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 1–34. 10.1515/cogl.2010.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2010.001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Benczes, R. , Barcelona, A. , y Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J.
    (Eds) (2011) Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a Consensus View. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28 [Google Scholar]
  11. Brugman, C.
    (1981) Story of Over: Polysemy, Semantics, and the Structure of the Lexicon. Nueva York: Garland.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Croft, W.
    (2002/1993) The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. En R. Dirven y R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (pp.161–205). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.161
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.161 [Google Scholar]
  13. Croft, W. , y Cruse, D.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dirven, R.
    (2003) Metonymy and metaphor: different mental strategies of conceptualisation [1993]. En R. Dirven y R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (pp.75–112). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Evans, V. , y Green, M.
    (2006) Cognitive linguistics: an introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fauconnier, G.
    (1994) Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511624582
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624582 [Google Scholar]
  17. (1997) Mapping in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139174220
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174220 [Google Scholar]
  18. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Fillmore, C. J. , y Atkins, B. T. S.
    (2000) Describing Polysemy: The Case of ‘Crawl’. En Y. Ravin y C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy. Theoretical and Computational Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Geeraerts, D.
    (1993) Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(3), 223–272. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.223
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.223 [Google Scholar]
  21. Goossens, L.
    (2002/1990) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistics action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–340. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gries, S. Th.
    (2006) Corpus based-methods and cognitive semantics: The many meanings of to run. En S. Th. Gries y A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis (pp.57–100). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197709.57
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197709.57 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gries, S. Th. , y Divjak, D. S.
    (2009) Behavioral profiles: a corpus-based approach towards semantic analysis. En V. Evans y S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp.57–75). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.24.07gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.07gri [Google Scholar]
  24. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
    (1999) Polysemy and metaphor in perception verbs: Across linguistic study. Tesis doctoral. Edimburgo: Universidad de Edimburgo.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2003) El cómo y el porqué de la polisemia de los verbos de percepción. En C. Molina , M. Blanco , J. Marín , A. L. Rodríguez , M. Romano (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in Spain at the turn of the century / La Lingüística Cognitiva en España en el cambio de siglo (pp.213–28). Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. , y Valenzuela, J.
    (2012) Lingüística cognitiva. Barcelona: Anthropos.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 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]
  28. Kövecses, Z.
    (2000) Metaphor and Emotion. Language, Culture, and Body in Human Feeling. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (2005) Metaphor in culture. Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511614408
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kövecses, Z. , y Radden, G.
    (1998) Metonymy: developing a cognitive linguistics 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]
  31. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  32. Lakoff, G. , y Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lakoff, G. , y Kövecses, Z.
    (1987) The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. En D. Holland y N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural Models in Language and Thought (pp.195–221). Nueva York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511607660.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607660.009 [Google Scholar]
  34. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanfors University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume II: Descriptive Applications. Stanford, CA: Stanfors Universitu Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (2000) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin and Nueva York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Littlemore, J.
    (2015) Metonymy. Hidden Shortcuts in Language, Thought and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107338814
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338814 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lyons, J.
    (1977) Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Moliner, M.
    (2007) Diccionario de uso del español (2vols.). Madrid: Gredos.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Peirsman, Y. , y Geeraerts, D.
    (2006) Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 269–316. 10.1515/COG.2006.007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.007 [Google Scholar]
  41. Philip, G.
    (2003) Connotation and Collocation: A Corpus-Based Investigation of Color Words In English and Italian. Tesis doctoral. Birmingham: The University of Birmingham.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. (2006) Connotative meaning in English and Italian Colour-Word Metaphors. Metaphorik, 10, 59–93.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Radden, G.
    (2000) How metonymic are metaphors?En A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. A Cognitive Perspective (pp.93–108). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Radden, G. , y Kövecses, Z.
    (1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. En K. U. Panther y G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought (pp.17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad [Google Scholar]
  45. Real Academia Española
    Real Academia Española. Diccionario de la lengua española (23ª ed.). Disponible enwww.rae.es/rae.html
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Rosch, E.
    (1973) On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. En T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. (1975) Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 193–233.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. (1978) Principles of categorization. En E. Rosch y B. B. Lloyd , Cognition and categorization (pp.27–48). Hillsdale: NJ Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Rozin, P. , Millman, L. , y Nemeroff, C.
    (1986) Operation of the laws of sympathetic magic in disgust and other domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 703. 10.1037/0022‑3514.50.4.703
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.4.703 [Google Scholar]
  50. Ruiz de Mendoza, F.
    (2000) The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. En A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. A Cognitive Perspective (pp.109–132). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. (2007) High level cognitive models: In search a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behavior. En K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on Metonymy (pp.11–30). Frnkfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. , y Miral Uson, R.
    (2007) High level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. En G. Radden , K. M. Köpcke , T. Berg y P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp.33–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.136.05rui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.05rui [Google Scholar]
  53. Ruiz de Mendoza, F.
    (2011) Metonymy and cognitive operations. En R. Benczes , A. Barcelona y F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds), Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics. Towards a Consensus View (pp.103–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.06rui. 10.1075/hcp.28.06rui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.06rui [Google Scholar]
  54. Seco, M. , Andrés, O. , y Ramos, G.
    (2004) Diccionario fraseológico documentado del español actual. Locuciones y modismos españoles. Madrid: Santillana.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Sherman, G. D. , y Clore, G. L.
    (2009) The color of sin: white and black are perceptual symbols of moral purity and pollution. Psychological Science, 20, 1019–1021. 10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2009.02403.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02403.x [Google Scholar]
  56. Soto Nieto, A. , y Barcelona, A.
    (2018) Principales patrones metonímicos en las extensiones semánticas de los términos cromáticos en español. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 75, 269–290. webs.ucm.es/info/circulo/no75/soto.pdf, doi:  10.5209/CLAC.61359
    https://doi.org/10.5209/CLAC.61359 [Google Scholar]
  57. 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]
  58. Tuggy, D.
    (1999) Linguistic Evidence for Polysemy in the Mind: A response to William Croft and Dominiek Sandra. Cognitive Linguistics, 10, 343–368.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Ullmann, S.
    (1962) Semántica. Introducción a la ciencia del significado. Madrid: Aguilar.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Wittgenstein, L.
    (1953) Philosophical Investigations. New York: The MacMillan Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Zohng, Ch. B. , y Liljenquist, K.
    (2006) Washing away your sins: Threatened morality and physical cleansing. Science, 313, 1451–1452. 10.1126/science.1130726
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1130726 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/resla.18028.sot
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/resla.18028.sot
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): categoría radial; color; metaphor; metonimia; metonymy; metáfora; polisemia; polysemy; radial category
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