Resemblance operations and conceptual complexity in animal metaphor

Autor: Iza Erviti, Aneider

Tipo de documento: Artículo de revista

Revista: Revista de Linguistica y Lenguas Aplicadas. ISSN: 1886-2438. Año: 2012. Número: 1. Volumen: 7. Páginas: 163-178.

Texto completo open access 

CIRC: GRUPO B

Resumen: For over thirty years cognitive linguists have devoted much effort to the study of metaphors based on the correlation of events in human experience to the detriment of the more traditional notion of resemblance metaphor, which exploits perceived similarities among objects. Grady (1999) draws attention to this problem and calls for a more serious study of the latter type of metaphor. The present paper takes up this challenge on the basis of a small corpus of ‘animal’ metaphors in English, which are essentially based on resemblance. Contrary to previous analyses by cognitive linguists (e.g. Lakoff & Turner 1989, Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, 1998), who claim that such metaphors are based on a single mapping generally involving comparable behavioral attributes, I will argue that we have a more complex situation which involves different patterns of conceptual interaction. In this respect, I have identified cases of (i) animal metaphors interacting with high-level (i.e. grammatical) metaphors and metonymies, of (ii) (situational) animal metaphors whose source domains are constructed metonymically (cf. Goossens 1990; Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & Díez Velasco 2002), and of (iii) animal metaphors interacting with other metaphors thereby giving rise to metaphoric amalgams (cf. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & Galera Masegosa 2011)

Referencias:

  • Black, M. (1954). “Metaphor”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 55, 273–294.
  • Brooke-Rose, C. (1958). A Grammar of Metaphor. London: Secker &
  • Warburg.
  • Coulson, S. &
  • Oakley, T. (2000). “Blending Basics”, Cognitive Linguistics 11(3/4), 175-196.
  • Dirven, R. &
  • Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2010). “Looking back at 30 years of cognitive linguistics”, in E. Tabakowska, M. Choinski, &
  • L. Wiraszka (eds.) Cognitive Linguistics in Action: From Theory to Application and Back. Berlin, Germany/New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter, 13–70.
  • Fauconnier, G. &
  • Turner, M. (1996). “Blending as a central process in grammar”, in A. Goldberg (ed.) Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language. Stanford, CA: Cambridge University Press, 113–130.
  • Fauconnier, G. &
  • Turner, M. (1998). “Conceptual Integration Networks”, Cognitive Science 22(2), 133-187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1
  • Fauconnier, G. &
  • Turner, M. (2003). The Way We Think. New York: Basic Books.
  • Fauconnier, G. (2009). “Generalized integration networks”, in Evans, Vyvyan &
  • Stéphanie Pourcel (eds.) New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 147-160.
  • Galera Masegosa, A. (2011). “A contrastive analysis of cognitive operations underlying the interpretation of English and Spanish sayings”. Paper presented at the International Conference Cognitive Perspectives on Contrastive Grammar, University of Economics and Humanities, Bielsko-Biala, Poland, September 26-27, 2011.
  • Gibbs, R.W. (1994). The Poetics of the Mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gibbs, R.W. (2006). Embodiment and Cognitive Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at Work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Goossens, L. (1990). “Metaphtonymy: the Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in Expressions for Linguistic Action” in Dirven, R &
  • Pörings, R. (eds.) Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlín/New York, 349-378.
  • Grady, J. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.
  • Grady, J. (1999). “A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: correlation vs. resemblance” in R. Gibbs &
  • G. Steen (Eds.) Metaphor in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins, 79–100.
  • Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408
  • Kövecses, Z. (2011). “Recent developments in metaphor theory: Are the new views rival ones?”, Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9(1), 11-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.1.02kov
  • Kövecses, Z. &
  • Radden, G. (1998). “Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view”, Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
  • Lakoff, G. (1993). “The contemporary theory of metaphor”, in Ortony, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 202–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
  • Lakoff, G., &
  • Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff, G., &
  • Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. New York, NY: Basic Books.
  • Lakoff, G., &
  • Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
  • Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Peña, M. S. (2003). Topology and Cognition. What Image-Schemas Reveal About the Metaphorical Language of Emotions. Lincom Europa, München.
  • Pragglejaz Group (2007). “MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse”, Metaphor &
  • Symbol 22 (1), 1-39.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. (1998). “On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon”, Journal of Pragmatics 30, 259–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00006-X
  • Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. (2000). “The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy”, in A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter, 109–132.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, 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. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter, 121–152.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. (2011). “Metonymy and cognitive operations”, in R. Benczes, A. Barcelona Sánchez &
  • F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (eds.), Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a Consensus View. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins, 103–124.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. &
  • Díez Velasco, O. (2002). “Patterns of Conceptual Interaction” in Dirven, R. &
  • Pörings, R. (eds.) Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlín/Nueva York, 489–532.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. &
  • Galera Masegosa, A. (2011). “Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation”, Language Value 3
  • in press.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., &
  • Mairal Usón, R. (2007). High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construc- tion. In G. Radden, K. Köpcke, M. T. Berg, &
  • P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of Meaning Construction. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins
  • 33–51.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., &
  • Mairal Usón, R. (2011). “Constraints on syntactic alternation: Lexical-constructional subsumption in the lexical-constructional model”, in P. Guerrero (ed.) Morphosyntactic alternations in English: Functional and cognitive perspectives. London, UK/Oakville, CT: Equinox, 62–82.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., &
  • Otal Campo, J. L. (2002). Metonymy, Grammar, and Communication. Granada, Spain: Comares.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. &
  • Peña Cervel, M.S. (2005). “Conceptual interaction, cognitive operations, and projection spaces”, in F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez &
  • M.S. Peña Cervel (Eds.) Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 254–280.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. &
  • Perez Hernández, L. (2011). “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges”, Metaphor and Symbol 26, 1–25.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., &
  • Pérez Hernández, L. (2001). “Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction”, Language and Communication 21, 321–357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(01)00008-8
  • Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. &
  • Santibáñez Sáenz, F. (2003). “Content and formal cognitive operations in construing meaning”, Italian Journal of Linguistics 2 (15), 293–320.
  • Searle, J. (1979). “Metaphor”, in John Searle (ed.) Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 76-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213.006
  • Steen, G. (2011). “The contemporary theory of metaphor — now new and improved!”, Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9(1), 26–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.1.03ste
  • Tendahl, M., &
  • Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2008). “Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory”, Journal of Pragmatics 40, 1823–1864. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.001
  • Turner, M. (2007). "
  • Conceptual Integration"
  • , in D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Yu, N. (2009). The Chinese HEART in a Cognitive Perspective: Culture, Body, and Language. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.E http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110213348