1887
Volume 30, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0213-2028
  • E-ISSN: 2254-6774
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The present paper goes beyond previous treatments of cognitive models, especially conceptual metaphor and metonymy, by drawing on linguistic evidence. It introduces needed refinements into previous meaning construction accounts by investigating the activity of , i.e., combinations of cognitive models whose existence can be detected from a careful examination of the meaning effects of some linguistic expressions. This improvement endows the linguist with a more powerful set of analytical tools capable of dealing with a broader range of phenomena than previous theories. The paper first explores and , and their meaning effects. Then, it addresses the metonymic exploitation of and . The resulting analytical apparatus proves applicable to the study of and , which have so far been addressed in Cognitive Linguistics without making explicit any relation between them or with other phenomena. We give evidence that these two phenomena can be dealt with as specific cases of metonymic domain expansion and domain reduction respectively. This means that fictive motion and image-schema transformations can be fully integrated into an encompassing account of cognitive modeling based on the activity of single or combined cognitive operations on basic or complex cognitive models.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/resla.30.1.12rui
2017-11-23
2019-09-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Boas, H. C.
    (2005) From theory to practice: Frame Semantics and the design of FrameNet. In S. Langer & D. Schnorbusch (Eds.), Semantik im lexikon (pp.129–160). Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Fauconnier, G. , & Turner, M.
    (2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–255.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Fillmore, C. J. , Johnson, C. R. , & Petruck, M. R. L.
    (2003) Background to Framenet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 235–250. doi: 10.1093/ijl/16.3.235
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/16.3.235 [Google Scholar]
  5. Gibbs, R. W.
    (2006) Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind & Language, 21(3), 434–458. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2006.00285.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00285.x [Google Scholar]
  6. (2007) Experimental tests of figurative meaning construction. In G. Radden , K. M. Köpke , T. Berg , & P. Siemund (Eds.) Aspects of meaning construction (pp.19–32). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.136.04gib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.04gib [Google Scholar]
  7. (2011) Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529–562. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103 [Google Scholar]
  8. Glebkin, V.
    (2013) A critical view of Conceptual Blending Theory. In M. Knauff , M. Pauen , N. Sebanz & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.2404–2409). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Goossens, L.
    (1990) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–340. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323 [Google Scholar]
  10. Grady, J. E.
    (1997)  theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267–290. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.4.267
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.4.267 [Google Scholar]
  11. (1999) A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: correlation vs. resemblance. In R. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.79–100). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.175.06gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.175.06gra [Google Scholar]
  12. Grady, J. , Oakley, T. , & Coulson, S.
    (1999) Blending and metaphor. In G. Steen & R. W. Gibbs (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.175.07gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.175.07gra [Google Scholar]
  13. Hampe, B.
    (Ed.) (2005) From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110197532
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532 [Google Scholar]
  14. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kövecses, Z. , & Radden, G.
    (1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  16. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp.202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  18. Lakoff, G. , & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (1999) Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume 1: Theoretical pre- requisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1–38. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  22. (1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110800524
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 [Google Scholar]
  23. Matlock, T.
    (2004) The conceptual motivation of fictive motion. In G. Radden & K. -U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp.221–248). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2010) Abstract motion is no longer abstract. Language and Cognition, 2(2), 243–260. doi: 10.1515/langcog.2010.010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog.2010.010 [Google Scholar]
  25. Moore, K. E.
    (2014) The two-mover hypothesis and the significance of “direction of motion” in temporal metaphors. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 375–409. doi: 10.1075/rcl.12.2.05moo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.12.2.05moo [Google Scholar]
  26. Peña, S.
    (2003) Topology and cognition: What image-schemas reveal about the metaphorical language of emotions. Munich: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2008) Dependency systems for image-schematic patterns in a usage-based approach to language. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(6), 1041–1066. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Peña, S. , & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2009) Metonymic and metaphoric bases of two image-schema transformations. In K. -U. Panther , L. Thornburg , & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.339–361). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.25.21pen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.21pen [Google Scholar]
  29. Rao, S. M. , Mayer, A. R. , & Harrington, D. L.
    (2001) The evolution of brain activation during temporal processing. Nature Neuroscience, 4(3), 317–323. doi: 10.1038/85191
    https://doi.org/10.1038/85191 [Google Scholar]
  30. Richardson, D. C. , & Matlock, T.
    (2007) The integration of figurative language and static depictions: An eye movement study of fictive motion. Cognition, 102, 129–138. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  31. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2008) Cross-linguistic analysis, second language teaching and cognitive semantics: The case of Spanish diminutives and reflexive constructions. In S. De Knop & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to Pedagogical Grammar: Volume in honor of René Dirven (pp.121–152). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (2011) Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes , A. Barcelona , & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp.103–123). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.28.06rui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.06rui [Google Scholar]
  33. (2014) On the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explanation: Towards settling some controversies. In J. Littlemore & J. Taylor (Eds.), Bloomsbury companion to Cognitive Linguistics (143–166). London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (2017) Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: From basicity to complexity. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition, and discourse (pp.138–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Díez, O. I.
    (2002) Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.489–532). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110219197.489
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.489 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Galera, A.
    (2011) Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value, 3(1), 1–29. doi: 10.6035/LanguageV.2011.3.2
    https://doi.org/10.6035/LanguageV.2011.3.2 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2014) Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.45 [Google Scholar]
  38. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. , & Pérez, L.
    (2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 161–185. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2011.583189
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.583189 [Google Scholar]
  39. Talmy, L.
    (2000a) Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume I: Concept structuring system. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (2000b) Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. (2007) Attention phenomena. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.264–293). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. (2014) Concept structuring systems in language. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Vol.II. (pp.15–46). New York: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Veale, T.
    (2005) Incongruity on humor: Root cause or epiphenomenon?Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 17(4), 419–428.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/resla.30.1.12rui
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/resla.30.1.12rui
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