Conceptual complexes in cognitive modeling

  1. Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez 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: 2017

Volumen: 30

Número: 1

Páginas: 297-322

Tipo: Artículo

beta Ver similares en nube de resultados
DOI: 10.1075/RESLA.30.1.12RUI DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

Otras publicaciones en: Revista española de lingüística aplicada

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

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 conceptual complexes, 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 metaphoric and metonymic complexes, and their meaning effects. Then, it addresses the metonymic exploitation of frame complexes and image-schematic complexes. The resulting analytical apparatus proves applicable to the study of fictive motion and image-schema transformations, 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.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • 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.
  • Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
  • Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–255.
  • 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
  • Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind & Language, 21(3), 434–458. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00285.x
  • Gibbs, R. W. (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
  • Gibbs, R. W. (2011). Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529– 562. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103
  • 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.
  • 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
  • Grady, J. E. (1997). theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267–290. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.4.267
  • Grady, J. E. (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
  • 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
  • Hampe, B. (Ed.). (2005). From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110197532
  • Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
  • 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
  • Lakoff, G. (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
  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
  • Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume 1: Theoretical pre- requisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1–38. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1
  • Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110800524
  • 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.
  • Matlock, T. (2010). Abstract motion is no longer abstract. Language and Cognition, 2(2), 243–260. doi: 10.1515/langcog.2010.010
  • 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
  • Peña, S. (2003). Topology and cognition: What image-schemas reveal about the metaphorical language of emotions. Munich: Lincom Europa.
  • Peña, S. (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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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. (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
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (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.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (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.
  • 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
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A. (2011). Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric and etonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value, 3(1), 1–29. doi: 10.6035/LanguageV.2011.3.2
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.45
  • 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
  • Talmy, L. (2000a). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume I: Concept structuring system. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
  • Talmy, L. (2000b). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
  • Talmy, L. (2007). Attention phenomena. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 264–293). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Talmy, L. (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.
  • Veale, T. (2005). Incongruity on humor: Root cause or epiphenomenon? Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 17(4), 419–428.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet