Subsidiarity relationships between image-schemasan approach to the force schema

  1. Peña Cervel, María Sandra 1
  1. 1 Universidad de La Rioja
    info

    Universidad de La Rioja

    Logroño, España

    ROR https://ror.org/0553yr311

Aldizkaria:
Journal of English Studies

ISSN: 1576-6357

Argitalpen urtea: 1999

Zenbakia: 1

Orrialdeak: 187-208

Mota: Artikulua

beta Ver similares en nube de resultados
DOI: 10.18172/JES.49 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Beste argitalpen batzuk: Journal of English Studies

Gordailu instituzionala: lock_openSarbide irekia Editor

Garapen Iraunkorreko Helburuak

Laburpena

In this paper, we investigate the nature of the FORCE image-schema as subsidiary to the PATH schema. On the basis that not all image-schemas can be ranked on a par (see Pauwels & Simon-Vandenbergen 1993 and Peña 1998) we establish three different types of subsidiarity relationships between image-schemas. We further observe that the FORCE image-schema plays a prominent role in the conceptualization of metaphors for emotions in English. Additionally, the seemingly chaotic and abstract domain of emotions will be shown to be endowed with coherence and structure

Erreferentzia bibliografikoak

  • Dik, S. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, I: The Structure of the Clause. Edited by K. Hengeveld. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Fornés, M. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. 1998. “Esquemas de imágenes y construcción del espacio”. RILCE 14, 1: 23-43. Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra: University of Navarra.
  • Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Reason and Imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Kövecses, Z. 1990. Emotion Concepts. U.S.A.: Springer-Verlag.
  • Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  • Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. 1989. More than Cool Reason. A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff, G. 1989. “Some empirical results about the nature of concepts”. Mind and Language 4, 1-2: 103-129.
  • Langacker, R.W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, I, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Mandler, J.M. 1992. “How to Build a Baby: II. Conceptual Primitives”. Psychological Review 99, 4: 587-604.
  • Pauwels, P. & Simon-Vandenbergen, A.M. 1993. “Value judgment in the metaphorization of linguistic action”. Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language. Eds. R. A. Geiger, and B. Rudzka Ostyn. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Pauwels, P. & Simon-Vandenbergen, A.M. 1995. “Body parts in linguistic action”. By Word of Mouth. Metaphor, Metonymy and Linguistic Action in a Cognitive Perspective. Eds. L. Goossens et al. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Peña, S. 1997a.“The container image-schema and other subsidiary image-schemata”. Actas del XXI Congreso AEDEAN; University of Seville; forthcoming.
  • Peña, S. 1997b. “The role of the event structure metaphor and of image-schematic structure in metaphors for happiness and sadness”. Miscelánea. A Journal of English and American Studies 18: 253-266.
  • Peña, S. 1998. “Esquemas de imagen básicos y subsidiarios: análisis del esquema de CAMINO”. Perspectivas pragmáticas en lingüística aplicada. Eds. I. Vázquez and I. Guillén. Zaragoza: ANUBAR Ediciones. 81-86.
  • Radden, G. 1996. “Motion metaphorized: the case of coming and going”. Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods: The Expansion of a New Paradigm in Linguistics. Ed. E. H. Casad. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. 1998. “On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon”. Journal of Pragmatics 30: 259-274.
  • Vandeloise, C. 1996. “Touching: a minimal transmission of energy”. Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods: The Expansion of a New Paradigm in Linguistics. Ed. E. H. Casad. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Datuen iturria: Dialnet