Metaphor and National Identity

Alternative conceptualization of the Treaty of Trianon

| Eötvös Loránd University
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027204745 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027261724 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
Due to the Treaty of Trianon – which was signed at the end of World War 1 in 1920 – Hungary lost two thirds of its former territory, as well as the inhabitants of these areas. The book aims to reveal why the treaty still plays a role in Hungarian national identity construction, by studying the alternative conceptualization of the treaty and its consequences. The cognitive linguistic research explores Hungarian politicians’ conceptual system about Trianon, with special interest on conceptual metaphors. It also analyzes the factors that may motivate the emergence of the conceptual system, as well as its synchronic diversity and diachronic changes. The monograph provides a niche insight into the conceptual basis of how contemporary citizens of Hungary interpret the treaty of Trianon and its consequences. The book will be of interest to cognitive and cultural linguists, cultural anthropologists, or any professionals working on national identity construction.
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts, 11]  2019.  xvii, 276 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Acknowledgement
xvii
Chapter 1. Introduction
1–32
Chapter 2. The agreement frame
33–66
Chapter 3. The conceptualization of the consequences of the Peace Treaty of Trianon
67–146
Chapter 4. The contextual factors that motivate the conceptual processes that are at work during the conceptualization of the peace treaty and its consequences
147–184
Chapter 5. The alternative conceptualization of the Trianon peace treaty as a problem and its solutions
185–213
Chapter 6. The alternative conceptualization of June 4
212–243
Chapter 7. The role of Trianon in the construction of Hungarian national identity
245–250
Chapter 8. Summary
251–262
References
263–266
Appendix 1. The conceptualization of the Peace Treaty of Trianon and its consequences
267–270
Index
271
References

References

Andelman, D. A.
(2007) A shattered peace. Versailles 1919 and the price we pay today. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A.
(2003) Metonymy in cognitive linguistics: An analysis and a few modest proposals. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (pp. 223–55). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A., & Valenzuela, J.
(2011) An overview of cognitive linguistics. In M. Brdar, S. T. Gries, & M. Ž. Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Convergence and expansion (pp. 7–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L.
(1999) Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–609.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive and neural contributions to understanding the conceptual system. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 91–95. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) The human conceptual system. In M. Spivey, K. McRae, & M. Joanisse (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of psycholinguistic (pp. 239–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D.
(2005) The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 1, 193–216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, L.
(2009) The discourse dynamics approach to metaphor and metaphor-led discourse analysis. Metaphor and Symbol, 2, 63–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A.
(2007) Frames, idealized cognitive models, and domains. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 170–88). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Collins
(2018) http://​www​.collinsdictionary​.com/ Retrieved September 25 2018.
Croft, W.
(1993) The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 335–371. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, R.
(1989) The selfish gene (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dénes, I. Z.
(2001) Európai mintakövetés – nemzeti öncélúság: Értékvilág és identitáskeresés a 19–20. századi Magyarországon [Tracking the European model – national self-serving: Search for value and identity]. Budapest: Új Mandátum Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar
Dunmire, P.
(2012) Political discourse analysis: Exploring the language of politics and the politics of language. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(11), 735–751. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G.
(1994) Mental spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(1982) Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Corea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
FrameNet Project
Goatly, A.
(2007) Washing the brain: Metaphor and hidden ideology: Discourse approaches to politics, society and culture. Amstredam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.
(1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keynes, J. M.
(1919) The economic consequences of the peace. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Howe, Inc.Google Scholar
Kiss, G. C.
(2002) Hungarológia és nemzeti mítoszok [Hungarian studies and national myths]. Korunk, 11, 90–93.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
(2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Language, mind and culture: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2010a) Metaphor: A practical introduction. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2010b) Metaphor, language, and culture. D.E.L.T.A., 26, 739–757.Google Scholar
(2011) Methodological issues in conceptual metaphor theory. In H-J. Schmid, & B. Handl (Eds.), Windows to the mind: Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual blending (pp. 23–39). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017a) Context in cultual linguisitics. The case of metaphor. In F. Sharifin (Ed.), Advances in cultural linguistics (pp. 1–29). Singapore: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017b) Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 28, 321–348. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017c) Conceptual metaphor theory. In E. Semino & Z. Demjén (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language (pp. 13–27). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive view. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 37–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony, (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(2003) Metaphors we live by (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar (Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites). Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Macartney, C. A.
(1937) Hungary and her successors: The Treaty of Trianon and its consequences: 1919–1937. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Musolff, A.
(2004) Metaphor and conceptual evolution. metaphoric.de. Retrieved September 25 2018 from http://​www​.metaphorik​.de​/de​/journal​/07​/metaphor​-and​-conceptual​-evolution​.htmlGoogle Scholar
(2010) Metaphor in discourse history. In M. E. Winters, H. Tissari, & K. Allah (Eds.), Historical cognitive linguistics (pp. 70–93). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Musolff, A., & Zinken, J.
(Eds.) (2009) Metaphor and discourse. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K. U.
(2005) The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In D. M. Ibáñez, F. J. Ruiz, & M. S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 353–386). Berling: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Paradis, C.
(2004) Where does metonymy stop? Senses, facets, and active zones. Metaphor and Symbol, 4, 245–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Polzenhagen, F., & Wolf, H. G.
(2003) Conceptual metaphor as ideological stylistic means. An exemplary analysis. In R. Dirven, F. Roslyn, & M. Pütz (Eds.), Cognitive models in language and thought: Ideologies, metaphors, and meanings (pp. 247–275). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pragglejaz Group
2007MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 1, 1–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Romsics, I.
(2002) The Dismantling of Historic Hungary: The Peace Treaty of Trianon, 1920. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Semino, E.
(2008) Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2011) The adaptation of metaphors across genres. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 130–152. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sharifian, F.
(2008) Distributed, emergent cultural cognition, conceptualisation, and language. In R. M. Frank, R. Dirven, T. Ziemke, & E. Bernárdez (Eds.), Body, language, and mind (Volume 2: Sociocultural situatedness, pp. 109–137). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2011) Cultural conceptualizations and language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Cultural linguistics. The state of the art. In F. Sharifin (Ed.), Advances in cultural linguistics (pp. 1–29). Singapore: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., & Krennmayr, T.
(2010) Metaphor in usage. Cognitive Lingusitics, 4, 757–788.Google Scholar
Szűcs, J.
(1984) Nemzet és történelem [Nation and history]. Budapest: Gondolat Kiadó.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
(2000) Toward a cognitive semantics (Volume 1: Concept structuring systems). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2007) Attention phenomena. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 264–293). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A.
(1997) What is political discourse analysis? In J. Blommaert & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Political linguistics (pp. 11–52). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2000) A cognitive discourse analysis. An introduction. Retrieved September 25 2018 from http://​www​.discursos​.org​/unpublished%20articles​/cogn​-dis​-anal​.htmGoogle Scholar
(2001) Discourse, ideology and context. Folia Linguistica, 35(1–2), 11–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, A.
(2007) Construal and perspectivization. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 48–82). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wodak, R.
(2009) Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory, and methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods for critical discourse analysis (pp. 1–33). London: Sage.Google Scholar
(2010) The discursive construction of history. Brief considerations. Mots. Les langages du politique, 94, 57–65.Google Scholar
Wodak, R., & Boukala, S.
(2015) European identities and the revival of nationalism in the European Union: A discourse historical approach. Journal of Language and Politics, 1, 87–109.Google Scholar
Zeidler, M.
(2002) A magyar irredenta kultusz a két világháború között [The Hungarian irredentist cult between the two world wars]. Budapest: Teleki László Alapítvány.Google Scholar
Zinken, J., Hellsten, I., & Nerlich, B.
(2008) Discourse metaphors. In R. M. Frank, R. Dirven, T. Ziemke, & E. Bernárdez (Eds.), Body, language, and mind (Volume 2: Sociocultural situatedness, pp. 363–386). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Putz, Orsolya
2020. Image metaphors of Trianon. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 7:1  pp. 168 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 04 october 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Subjects
BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN015000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Rhetoric
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2019039761