Conceptual complexity in metaphorical resemblance operations revisited

  1. Alicia Galera-Masegosa 1
  2. Aneider Iza Erviti 1
  1. 1 Universidad de La Rioja
    info

    Universidad de La Rioja

    Logroño, España

    ROR https://ror.org/0553yr311

Revista:
Revista española de lingüística aplicada

ISSN: 0213-2028

Año de publicación: 2015

Volumen: 28

Volumen: 1

Páginas: 97-117

Tipo: Artículo

beta Ver similares en nube de resultados
DOI: 10.1075/RESLA.28.1.05GAL DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

Otras publicaciones en: Revista española de lingüística aplicada

Proyectos relacionados

Fundamentos para la construcción del nivel gramatical en el entorno de una base de conocimiento léxico-conceptual

2011/00003/001

Resumen

The present article is concerned with the analysis of so-called metaphoric resemblance operations. Our corpus of animal metaphors, as representative of resemblance metaphors, reveals that there are complex cognitive operations other than simple one-correspondence mappings that are necessary to understand the interpretation process of the selected expressions (which include metaphor and simile). We have identified a strong underlying situational component in many of the examples under scrutiny, which requires the metonymic expansion of the metaphoric source. Additionally, metaphoric amalgams (understood as the combination of the conceptual material from two or more metaphors) and high-level metonymy in interaction with low-level metaphor are also essential for the analysis of animal metaphors.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Barcelona, A. (2000) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Barcelona, A. (2005) The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains. In F. Ruiz de Mendoza & M.S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 313–352). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1996) Blending as a central process in grammar. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp. 113–130). Stanford, CA: Cambridge University Press
  • Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187.
  • Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
  • Galera-Masegosa, A. (2010) Metaphoric complexes: A Spanish-English contrastive analysis of metaphor and metonymy in interaction. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 231, 175–194.
  • 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: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gibbs, R.W. (2006) Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gibbs, R.W. (2011) Evaluating conceptual metaphor theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529–562.
  • Gibbs, R.W., & Steen, G. (1999) Metaphor in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Glucksberg, S. (2001) Understanding figurative language: From metaphor to idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Glucksberg, S. (2006) On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind and Language, 21(3), 360–378.
  • 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: Oxford University Press.
  • Goossens, L. (1990) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 349–378). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Grady, J. (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: John Benjamins.
  • Iza, A. (2012) Resemblance operations and conceptual complexity in animal metaphors. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 71.
  • Kövecses, Z. (2000) Metaphor and emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kövecses, Z. (2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Kövecses, Z. (2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kövecses, Z. (2011) Recent developments in metaphor theory: Are the new views rival ones? Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 11–25.
  • Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77.
  • Lakoff, G. (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • 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.
  • 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. Munich: Lincom Europa.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. (1998) On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 301, 259–274.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. (2000) The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 109–132). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • 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.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Díez, O. (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.
  • 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.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Mairal, R. (2007) High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In G. Radden, K. Köpcke, M.T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 33–51). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Mairal, 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 (pp. 62–82). London, UK/Oakville, CT: Equinox.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Otal, J.L. (2002) Metonymy, grammar, and communication. Granada: Comares.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Pérez, L. (2001) Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 211, 321–357.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Pérez, L. (2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 261, 1–25.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Santibáñez Sáenz, F. (2003) Content and formal cognitive operations in construing meaning. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 2(15), 293–320.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet