A cross-linguistic analysis of conceptual complexes in the domain of economy

  1. Mahum Hayat Khan 1
  1. 1 Universidad de La Rioja
    info

    Universidad de La Rioja

    Logroño, España

    ROR https://ror.org/0553yr311

Revista:
RAEL: revista electrónica de lingüística aplicada

ISSN: 1885-9089

Año de publicación: 2020

Volumen: 19

Número: 1

Páginas: 78-96

Tipo: Artículo

beta Ver similares en nube de resultados
DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: RAEL: revista electrónica de lingüística aplicada

Repositorio institucional: lock_openAcceso abierto Editor

Resumen

En las últimas dos décadas la relación entre la metáfora y la cultura ha sido objeto de estudio en la Lingüística Cognitiva especialmente debido al impacto de la globalización. Este impacto ha afectado particularmente al campo de la economía en el que el uso del lenguaje figurado está extendido. En el contexto de esta investigación, este artículo se centra en explorar no solo el papel de la metáfora, que ha sido el interés de un gran número de estudios, sino también el papel de los complejos conceptuales en las lenguas de dos países históricamente relacionados, pero con una economía muy diferente: Reino Unido y Pakistán. Para ello, metáforas y complejos conceptuales se han sido analizados en urdu e inglés. El análisis ha demostrado, desde un punto de vista interlingüístico, las complejidades del material conceptual en el campo de la economía y la capacidad descriptiva y explicativa de los complejos conceptuales.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Alejo, R. (2010). Where does the money go? An analysis of the container metaphor in economics: the market and economy. Journal of Pragmatics, 4(42), 1137-1150.
  • Boers, F. (2000). Enhancing metaphoric awareness in specialised reading. English for Speciï¬c Purposes, 2(19), 137-147.
  • Boers, F, & Demecheleer, M. (1997). A few metaphorical models in (Western) economic discourse. In W. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 115-129). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Charteris-Black, J. (2000). Metaphor and vocabulary teaching in ESP economics. English for Speciï¬c Purposes, 2(19), 149-165.
  • Charteris-Black, J. & Ennis, T. (2001). A comparative study of metaphor in Spanish and English ï¬nancial reporting. English for Speciï¬c Purposes, 3(20), 249-266.
  • Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2010). Looking back at 30 years of Cognitive Linguistics. In E. Tabakowska, M. ChoinÌski & L. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in Action. From Theory to Application and Back (pp. 13-70). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Frank, R. M. (2015). A future agenda for research on language and culture. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture (pp. 493-512). London, New York: Routledge.
  • Geeraerts, D. (2010). Recontextualizing grammar: Underlying trends in thirty years of Cognitive Linguistics. In E. Tabakowska, M. ChoinÌski, & L. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in action. From theory to application and back (pp. 71-102). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Gibbs, R.W. (2011). Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529-562.
  • Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • 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.
  • Herrera-Soler, H. & White, M. (2007). A contrastive view of British and Spanish business press headlines. Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata, 39(1-2), 295-316.
  • Herrera-Soler, H. & White, M. (Eds.). (2012). Metaphor and Mills: Figurative language in business and economics. Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
  • Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor. A Practical Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Kövecses, Z. (2013). Recent developments in metaphor theory: Are the new views rival ones? In F. Gonzálvez-García, M. S. Peña Cervel & L. Pérez-Hernández (Eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy Revisited beyond the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor (pp. 11-25). Amsterdam / Philadephia: John Benjamins.
  • Kövecses, Z. (2015). Where Metaphors Come From. Reconsidering Context in Metaphor. USA: Oxford University Press.
  • Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. (1989). More than a Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
  • Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Langendoen, T. (1968). The London School of Linguistics: A Study of the Linguistic Theories of B. Malinowski and J.R. Firth. Cambridge. MA: MIT.
  • Langer, T. (2015). Metaphors in Economics: Conceptual Mapping Possibilities in the Lectures of Economics. Procedia Economics and Finance, 25, 308-317.
  • Maalej, Z. & Yu, N. (Eds.). (2011). Embodiment Via Body Parts: Studies from Various Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Pamies, A. & Ramos, I. R. (2017). Metaphors of economy and economy of metaphors. Europhras, 2, 60-69.
  • Pérez Sobrino, P. (2017). Multimodal Metaphor and Metonymy in Advertising. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • 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.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2017). Metaphor and other cognitive operation 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. (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 M. A. (2014). Cognitive Modelling. A Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Otal, J. L. (2002). Metonymy, Grammar and Communication. Granada: Comares.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Pérez-Hernández, L. (2011). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: Myths, Developments and Challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26(3), 161-185.
  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Santibáñez, F. (2003). Content and formal cognitive operations. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 2(15), 293-320.
  • Sharifian, F. (2017). Cultural Linguistics. Amsterdam, PA: John Benjamins.
  • Sharifian, F. (Ed.). (2017). Advances in Cultural Linguistics. New York, London and Singapore: Springer.
  • Skorczynska, H. & Deignan, A. (2006). Readership and purpose in the choice of economic metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 2 (2), 87-104.
  • Soares, A., Cuenca, M. J., & Romano, M. (2017). The Conceptualisation of austerity in the Portuguese, Spanish and Irish Press. In F. Sharifian (Ed.) Advances in Cultural Linguistics (pp. 345-368). Singapore: Springer.
  • Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance. Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  • Steen, G. J. (2013). The contemporary theory of metaphor — now new and improved! In F. Gonzálvez-García, M. S. Peña Cervel & L. Pérez-Hernández (Eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy Revisited Beyond the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor (pp. 27-65). Amsterdam and Philadephia: John Benjamins.
  • Ungerer, F. & Schmid, H. J. (2013). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Routledge.
  • Wang, H., Runtsova, T. & Chen, H. (2013). Economy is an organism – a comparative study of metaphor in English and Russian economic discourse. Text & Talk: An interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse and Communication Studies. 33(2), 259-288.
  • White, M. (2003). Metaphor and economics: the case of growth. English for Speciï¬c Purposes, 2(22), 131-151.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet