Structural similarity in figurative language: A preliminary cognitive analysis
-
1
Universidad de La Rioja
info
ISSN: 0024-3841
Año de publicación: 2023
Volumen: 290
Número: art. 103541
Páginas: 1-20
Tipo: Artículo
beta Ver similares en nube de resultadosOtras publicaciones en: Lingua
Resumen
Structural similarity may be based on the structural characteristics of concrete entities (e.g., the heart relates to bloodcirculation in the way that a pump to a hydraulic system) or on the structural properties of situations and events (e.g.,Your words were a dagger to my heart compares the emotional damage done by the hearer’s words to the physicalharm caused by a dagger). In combination with metonymy, structural similarity gives rise to paragon-based antonomasiaand allegory-like narratives. An example of paragon-based antonomasia is the Lennon of football, which, said about agreat player, is based on structural similarity: the player and the musician are masters, each in his domain of expertise.Allegory-like narratives rely on a form of high-level structural similarity where each entity-denoting target element is elab-orated through the member-for-class metonymy. For example, in “The Prodigal Son”, the regretful son’s return to hisfather asking for forgiveness represents any repentant sinner. In terms of structural similarity, God is to a repentant sin-ner what the forgiving father is to his returning son. Drawing on a selection of examples, this article reexamines the con-tribution of different types of structural similarity to figurative reasoning at various degrees of abstractness andcomplexity.
Referencias bibliográficas
- Athanasiadou, (2023), Lingua, 288, 10.1016/j.lingua.2023.103522
- Barcelona, (2003), Jezikoslovlje, 4, pp. 11
- Barcelona, (2004), pp. 357
- Berberović, (2007), Jezikoslovlje, 8, pp. 27
- Bergen, (2012)
- Bowdle, (2005), Psychol. Rev., 112, pp. 193, 10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193
- Brdar, (2007), pp. 125
- Brdar, M., 2017. Metonymy in Grammar: Towards Motivating Extensions of Grammatical Categories and Constructions. Osijek, Faculty of Philosophy.
- Bussmann, H., 1996. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Routledge, London (Translated from Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft, 2nd ed., Kröner Verlag, Stuttgart, 1990).
- Carston, (2010), Italian Journal of Linguistics, 22, pp. 153
- Carston, (2017), pp. 42
- Chiappe, (2000), J. Psycholinguist. Res., 29, pp. 371, 10.1023/A:1005103211670
- Desai, (2021)
- Dickstein, (2007), pp. 133
- Fauconnier, (2002)
- Fletcher, (2012)
- Gentner, (1983), Cognit. Sci., 7, pp. 155, 10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3
- (2001)
- Gentner, (1997), Am. Psychol., 52, pp. 45, 10.1037/0003-066X.52.1.45
- Gibbs, (2011), Metaphor. Symb., 26, pp. 121, 10.1080/10508406.2011.556498
- Gibbs, (2014), pp. 167
- Gibbs, (2012), Scientific Study of Literature, 2, pp. 199, 10.1075/ssol.2.2.02gib
- Głaz, (2012)
- Glucksberg, (2006), Mind Lang., 21, pp. 360, 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00282.x
- Gomola, (2018)
- Grady, (1999), pp. 79
- (2005)
- Hofstadter, (2013)
- Holman, (1972)
- Johnson, (1987)
- Krawczak, K., Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B., Grygiel, M., 2022. Analogy and Contrast in Language: Perspectives from Cognitive Linguistics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam & Philadelphia.
- Lakoff, (1990), Cognitive Linguistics, 1, pp. 39, 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39
- Lakoff, (1993), pp. 202
- Lakoff, (1980)
- Lakoff, (1999)
- Langacker, (1990)
- Langacker, (2009), pp. 45
- Langacker, R.W., 1984. Active zones. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, CA., pp. 172–188.
- Leech, (1969)
- Michaell, (2020)
- Miró, (2018), Australian Journal of Linguistics, 38, pp. 81, 10.1080/07268602.2018.1393860
- Moolman, K., (Ed.). 2017. Cutting Carrots the Wrong Way: Poetry and Prose about Food from the University of the Western Cape Creative Writing Programme. uHlanga Press, Cape Town.
- Okonski, (2019), J. Pragmat., 141, pp. 28, 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.014
- Peña, (2003)
- Peña, (2008), J. Pragmat., 40, pp. 1041, 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.03.001
- Peña, S., Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., 2022. Figuring out Figuration. John Benjamins, Amsterdam & Philadelphia.
- Quilligan, M., 1979. The Language of Allegory: Defining the Genre. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
- Ritchie, (2017), pp. 220
- Rodden, (1999)
- Romano, (2017), Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15, pp. 1, 10.1075/rcl.15.1.01rom
- Ruiz de Mendoza, (1998), J. Pragmat., 30, pp. 259, 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00006-X
- Ruiz de Mendoza, (2017), pp. 138
- Ruiz de Mendoza, (2020), Lang. Commun., 71, pp. 16, 10.1016/j.langcom.2019.12.002
- Ruiz de Mendoza, (2022), pp. 269
- Ruiz de Mendoza, (2022), pp. 15
- Ruiz de Mendoza, (2014)
- Sapir, (1921)
- Sperber, (1995)
- Thagard, (2011), Metaphor. Symb., 26, pp. 131, 10.1080/10926488.2011.556509
- Thorndyke, (1977), Cogn. Psychol., 9, pp. 77, 10.1016/0010-0285(77)90005-6
- Wearing, (2022), J. Pragmat., 202, pp. 66, 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.10.014
- Woods, (2004)
- (2022)