Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Approaches to Mind, Language, and Society: Theory and description
Edited by Mario Serrano-Losada and Daniela Pettersson-Traba
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies 11:1] 2024
► pp. 158–179

Concepts that fit in a (Roman) hand

The cognitive dimension of manus ‘hand’ in Seneca’s figurative language

ORCID logo | University of Salamanca
The Roman author Lucius Anneus Seneca (4 BC–65 AC), the main representative of Stoic philosophy in Latin literature, wrote several tragedies in verse in which the Latin noun manus ‘hand’ has a remarkable incidence, almost doubling the occurrence of other terms more related to tragic themes, such as scelus ‘crime’ or mors ‘death’. This paper is based on the hypothesis that this high frequency is linked to the concept of embodiment as well as on the metonymies and metaphors used in Seneca’s figurative language to encode abstract concepts. The occurrences of the term manus in a corpus composed of Seneca’s dramatic and philosophical texts have been analysed, paying attention to the metonymic and metaphorical contexts where it appears. As a result, it has been observed that this word can refer to multiple realities such as individuals, actions, identity, control, or power.
Keywords: Latin language, embodiment, conceptual metaphor, conceptual metonymy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background: Embodiment, metaphor, and metonymy
  • 3.Corpus and general results
  • 4.Hands and metonymy
    • 4.1 the hand for the body; the body for the person
    • 4.2Hands and actions
  • 5.Hands and metaphor
  • 6.Combining metaphors and metonymies
  • 7.Discussion and final remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 6 June 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00116.tur
References (43)
References
Ahn, H. J., & Kwon, Y. J. (2007). A study on metaphor and metonymy of hand. Journal of Language Sciences, 14 (2), 195–215.Google Scholar
Armisen-Marchetti, M. (1989). Sapientiae Facies: Étude sur les images de Sénèque [The face of wisdom: Study on Seneca’s images]. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991). La métaphore et l’ abstraction dans la prose de Sénèque [Metaphor and abstraction in Seneca’s prose]. In P. Grimal (ed.), Sénèque et la prose latine: Neuf exposés suivis de discussions [Seneca and the latin prose: Nine lectures followed by discussions] (pp. 99–139). Genève-Vandœuvres: Fondation Hardt.Google Scholar
Bartsch, S. (2009). Senecan metaphor and stoic self-instruction. In S. Bartsch & D. Wrey, Seneca and the self (pp. 188–217). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bekaert, E. (2009). Análisis de las metáforas y metonimias relativas a cinco partes del cuerpo esenciales: El ojo, la oreja, la nariz, la boca y la mano [Analysis of metaphors and metonymies relating to five essential parts of the body: The eye, the ear, the nose, the mouth and the hand]. Ghent: Universiteit Ghent.Google Scholar
Billioti de Gage, C. (2012). Hands and manipulations in the grammar and cognitive systems of English. Bordeaux: Michel de Montaigne – Bordeaux III.Google Scholar
Casasanto, D. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138 (3), 351–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Castaño, E., Gilboy, E., Feijóo, S., Serrat, E., Rostan, C., Hilferty, J. & Cunillera, T. (2018). Hand position and response assignment modulate the activation of the valence-space conceptual metaphor. Cognitive Science, 42 (7), 2342–2363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A. (2007). Frames, idealized cognitive models, and domains. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 170–187). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Codoñer Merino, C. (1997). Séneca: Obras filosóficas [Seneca: Philosophical works]. In C. Codoñer Merino (Ed.), Historia de la literatura latina [History of Latin literature] (pp. 545–556). Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
Díez Velasco, O. I. (2000). A cross-linguistic analysis of the nature of some “hand” metonymies in English and Spanish. Atlantis, 22 (2), 51–67. [URL]
Dirven, R. (2003). Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualisation. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 75–112). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fan, H. (2017). A study of “hand” metaphors in English and Chinese – Cognitive and cultural perspective. Advances in Literary Study, 5 (4), 84–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fedriani, C. (2011). Experiential metaphors in Latin: Feelings were containers, movements and things possessed. Transactions of the Philological Society, 109 (3), 307–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Ontological and orientational metaphors in Latin: Evidence from the semantics of feelings and emotions. In W. M. Short (Ed.), Embodiment in Latin semantics (pp. 115–140). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Jurado, F., & López Gregoris, R. (1995). Las metáforas de la vida cotidiana en el lenguaje plautino como procedimiento de caracterización de los personajes [Daily life metaphors in the Plautinian language as a procedure for characterisation of the characters]. Studi Italiani Di Filologia Classica, 13 (2), 233–245.Google Scholar
Gazzarri, T. (2020). The stylus and the scalpel–Theory and practice of metaphor in Seneca’s prose. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gómez Caballero, I. (2021). Estudio estilométrico del teatro latino: a vueltas con Octavia y Hercules Oetaeus de Séneca [Stylometric study of latin theather: Around with Seneca’s Octavia and Hercules Oetaeus]. Cuadernos de Filología Clásica. Estudios latinos, 41 (1), 57–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goossens, L. (2003). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 349–378). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kimmel, M. (2010). Why we mix metaphors (and mix them well): Discourse coherence, conceptual metaphor, and beyond. Journal of Pragmatics, 42 (1), 97–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2016). A view of “mixed metaphor” within a conceptual metaphor theory framework. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), Mixing metaphor (pp. 3–15). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2018). Metáforas de la vida cotidiana [Metaphors we live by]. Translated by C. G. Marín. Madrid: CátedraGoogle Scholar
Luque Moreno, J. (1999). Séneca: Tragedias II. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Marco Simón, F. (1986). Topografía cualitativa en la magia romana. Izquierda y derecha como elementos de determinación simbólica [Qualitative topography in Roman magic. Left and right as elements of symbolic representation]. Memorias de historia antigua, 7 1, 81–90.Google Scholar
Mocciaro, E., & Short, W. M. (2019). Toward a cognitive classical linguistics: The embodied basis of constructions in Greek and Latin. Warsaw: De Gruyter Open Poland. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez Gómez, L. (1997). La tragedia [Tragedy]. In C. Codoñer (Ed.), Historia de la literatura latina [History of Latin literature] (pp. 567–578). Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seto, K.-I. (1999). Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 91–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Short, W. M. (2008). Thinking places, placing thoughts: Spatial metaphors of mental activity in Roman culture. Quaderni Del Ramo d’oro, 1 1, 106–129.Google Scholar
(2016a). Embodiment in Latin semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016b). Spatial metaphors of time in Roman culture. The Classical World, 109 (3), 381–412. [URL]. DOI logo
Sjöblad, A. (2015). Metaphorical coherence: Studies in Seneca’s epistulae morales. (Studia Graeca et Latina Lundensia; Vol. 20). Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University.Google Scholar
Stepien, M. A. (2007). Metáfora y metonimia conceptual en la fraseología de cinco partes del cuerpo humano en español y polaco. Anuario de estudios filológicos, 30 1, 391–409.Google Scholar
Tarriño Ruiz, E. (2021). El adjetivo [The adjective]. In J. M. Baños (coord.), Sintaxis Latina (vol. 1) [Latin syntax (vol. 1)] (pp. 271–300). Madrid: CSIC.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2002). Category extension by metonymy and metaphor. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 323–348). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traina, A. (1974). Lo stile ‘drammatico’ del filosofo Seneca [The ‘dramatic’ style of the philosopher Seneca]. Bologna: Pàtron.Google Scholar
Tur, C. (2022). Metonimias y metáforas conceptuales con manus en el teatro latino [Conceptual metonymies and metaphors with manus in Latin drama]. Emerita, 90 (1), 121–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Unceta Gómez, L. (2012). Metáforas para pensar: Los verbos latinos de ‘pensamiento’ y ‘opinión’ desde un enfoque diacrónico structural [Metaphors for thinking: The Latin verbs of ‘thought’ and ‘opinion’ from a structural diachronic approach]. In J. Martínez del Castillo (Ed.), Eugenio Coseriu (1921–2002) en los comienzos del siglo XXI [Eugenio Coseriu (1921–2002) at the beginning of the 21st century.] (pp. 169–185). Málaga: Universidad de Málaga.Google Scholar
Zanobi, A. (2008). The influence of pantomime on Seneca’s tragedies. In E. Hall & R. Wyles (Eds.), New directions in ancient pantomime (pp. 227–257). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, B. (2008). Seneca and pantomime. In: E. Hall & R. Wyles (eds.), New directions in ancient pantomime (pp. 218–226). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar