Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 9:1 (2022) ► pp.128–151

Soft hearts and hard souls

The multiple textures of Old English feelings and emotions

ORCID logo | University of Castilla-La Mancha
One of the most fundamental claims of the Cognitive Theory of Metaphor is the direction of mapping from concrete to abstract. The pervasiveness of this path of semantic change has been widely accepted among researchers interested in the study of the history and development of emotional expressions. Whereas most studies focus on the analysis of one specific target domain (i.e., one emotion or one family of emotions), less attention has been paid to the reconstruction and analysis of the set of diachronic changes that affected one single source domain. Within this framework, in this paper I have used data extracted from standard Old English dictionaries and thesauri, in order to propose a complete analysis of the set of Old English adjectives for different textural properties of physical objects (such as roughness, smoothness, softness and hardness). I am especially interested in the reconstruction and analysis of the paths of semantic change (from concrete to abstract) illustrated by this section of the Old English vocabulary. Broadly speaking, apart from the original senses for physical texture, these adjectives developed secondary meanings in the fields of feelings and emotions, which I have classified into three categories: physical sensations (such as weakness and pleasantness), sensorial sensations (such as auditive, visual or gustative sensations) and emotional sensations (such as grief, anger, compassion and empathy). Furthermore, the resulting figurative meanings (which I have analysed in terms of metonymic, synaesthetic and metaphoric extensions) can also be grouped into positive and negative sensations. The present paper supports the idea that the origin of our understanding of abstract concepts is deeply rooted in our physical experiences. This is indeed a conceptual pattern showed by the diachronic evolution of Old English adjectives for texture. This paper concludes with some remarks on the social and cultural changes that prompted some of these semantic changes, paying special attention to the Christianization of Anglo-Saxon England and the introduction of Christian values.
Keywords: sensuous cognition, sense of touch, Old English, semantic extension, figurative language, emotional expressions
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The vocabulary of texture: Classification and analysis
    • 2.1Old English rough-adjectives
    • 2.2Old English smooth-adjectives
    • 2.3Old English hard-adjectives
    • 2.4Old English soft-adjectives
  • 3.Discussion of my results
  • 4.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
  • Dictionaries and corpora
Published online: 30 May 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.20025.dia
References (35)
References
Apresjan, V. (1997). Emotion metaphor and cross-linguistic metaphorization of emotions. Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa, 6 (2), 179–195.Google Scholar
Desmond, W. (1986). Art and the absolute: A study of Hegel’s aesthetics. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Díaz-Vera, J. E. (2002). The semantic architecture of the Old English Verbal Lexicon: A Historical-Lexicographic proposal. In J. E. Díaz-Vera (Ed.), A changing world of words: Studies in English Historical Lexicography, Lexicology and Semantics (pp. 47–77). Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Coming to past senses: Vision, touch and their metaphors in Anglo-Saxon language and culture. In K. Annette & B. Busse (Eds.), The five senses in Medieval and early Modern England (pp. 36–66). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Ding, S., Pan, Y., Tong, M., & Zhao, X. (2017). Tactile perception of roughness and hardness to discriminate materials by friction-induced vibration. Sensors, 17 (12), 2748. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ekman, G., Hosman, J., & Lindstrom, B. (1965). Roughness, smoothness, and preference: A study of quantitative relations in individual subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70 (1), 18–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallace, A. (2014). Textures that we like to touch: An experimental study of aesthetic preferences for tactile stimuli. Consciousness and Cognition, 29 1, 178–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., & Gevaert, C. (2008). Hearts and (angry) minds in Old English. In F. Sharifian, R. Dirven & N. Yu (Eds.), Culture, body, and language: Conceptualizations of internal body organs across cultures and languages (pp. 319–347). Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Goebs, K. (2011). King as god and god as king: Colour, light and transformation in Egyptian ritual. In R. Gundlach & K. Spence (Eds.), Palace and temple: Architecture – Decoration – Ritual. 5. Symposium zur Ägyptischen Königsideologie/5th Symposium on Egyptian Royal Ideology (pp. 57–101). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Hurtienne, J., Stößel, Ch., & Weber, K. (2009). Sad is heavy and happy is light: Population stereotypes of tangible object attributes. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (pp. 61–68). New York: ACM. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hurtienne, J., & Reinhardt, D. (2017). Texture metaphors and tangible interaction: No smooth relationship? TEI ’17: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (pp. 79–87). New York: ACM. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2013). The power of the senses and the role of culture in metaphor and language. In R. Caballero & J. E. Díaz-Vera (Eds.), Sensuous cognition: Explorations into human sentience: Imagination, (e)motion and perception (pp. 109–133). Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jager, E. (2000). The book of the heart. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google 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
Kövecses, Z. (2000). Metaphor and emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2007). Variation in metaphor. Ilha do Desterro, 55 1, 13–39.Google Scholar
Lishner, D., Batson, D., & Huss, E. (2011). Tenderness and sympathy: Distinct empathic emotions elicited by different forms of need. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37 (5), 614–625. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Minaya-Gómez, F. J. (2019). As beautiful inside, as it is outside: On the connection between beauty and morality in the Old English corpus. Complutense Journal of English Studies, 27 1, 205–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peters, J. D. (1999). The bowels of mercy. BYU Studies Quarterly, 38 (4), 27–41.Google Scholar
Sacharin, V., Schlegel, K., & Scherer, K. R. (2012). Geneva Emotion Wheel rating study. Geneva: Swiss Center for Affective Sciences.Google Scholar
Semino, E. (2010). Descriptions of pain, metaphor, and embodied simulation. Metaphor and Symbol, 25 (4), 205–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skeates, R., & Day, J. (2020). The Routledge handbook of Sensory Archaeology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stevens, B. (2008). The scent of language and social synaesthesia at Rome. Classical World, 101 (2), 159–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y., Gyoba, J., & Sakamoto, S. (2008). Selective effects of auditory stimuli on tactile roughness perception. Brain Research, 1242 1, 87–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swan, T. (2009). Metaphors of body and mind in the History of English. English Studies, 90 (4), 460–475. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, J., & Stets, J. (2006). Moral emotions. In J. Stets & J. Turner (Eds.), Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions (pp. 544–566). Boston: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weisfeld, G. (1996). Research on emotions and future developments in human ethology. In A. Schmitt, K. Atzwanger, K. Grammer & K. Schäfer (Eds.), New Aspects of Human Ethology (pp. 25–46). Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
Winter, I. J. (1994). Radiance as an aesthetic value in the art of Mesopotamia. In B. N. Saraswati, S. Ch. Malik & M. Khanna (Eds.), Art: The Integral Vision, a Volume of Essays in Felicitation of Kapila Vatsyayan (pp. 123–132). New Delhi: D.K. Printworld.Google Scholar
Xie, J., Lu, Z., Wang, R., & Cai, Z. (2016). Remember hard but think softly: Metaphorical effects of hardness/softness on cognitive functions. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 1, 1343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dictionaries and corpora
BT: J. Bosworth and T. N. Toller (Eds., 1972). An Anglo-Saxon dictionary: Based on the manuscript collection of Joseph Bosworth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
DOE: A. diPaolo Healey, J. Holland, I. McDougall and P. Mielke (Eds., 2018), The dictionary of Old English A to I. Toronto: DOE Project.Google Scholar
DOEC: A. diPaolo Healey, J. Holland, I. McDougall and P. Mielke (Eds., 2000), The dictionary of Old English Corpus in electronic form. Toronto: DOE Project.Google Scholar
OED: J. Simpson, (Ed., 2000). Oxford English dictionary (second edition on CD-ROM). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pokorny: J. Pokorny. (1959). Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
TOE: J. Roberts & Ch. Kay (Eds., 1995). A thesaurus of Old English. London: King’s College, CLAMS.Google Scholar