Cover not available
Article published In:
Metaphor Variation in Englishes around the World
Edited by Marcus Callies and Alexander Onysko
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies 4:1] 2017
► pp. 36–62

Metaphor variation of spatial conceptualizations in Irish English

A methodological design

| Trinity College Dublin (Ireland)
The current paper offers a novel methodological approach to gathering rich spatial data from Irish English speakers, showing variation in the cognition of physical and conceptual space. A mixed method study was conducted to gather conceptual and sociolinguistic data. This includes the first part of the data gathering: a structured interview, focusing on geographic aspects of the town and two wayfinding exercises. I then describe the second part of the study: twenty cloze procedure questions relating to a written example, followed by questions relating to seventeen hand-drawn images. I take as a baseline the instruments used by, inter alia, Levinson and Wilkins (2006a) and apply them to a within-culture study. I conclude this paper by discussing replicability and future studies. While Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) offers researchers a model to connect physical and conceptual elements of space, we have not seen a large-scale study of how CMT affects the language of space in varieties of English.
Keywords: methodology, conceptual metaphor, spatial language, cognitive sociolinguistics, apparent time language change
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Different types of spatial language
    • 2.2Conceptual Metaphor Theory
    • 2.3Variation in metaphor
    • 2.4How languages vary
      • 2.4.1Cross-linguistic studies of spatial reference
      • 2.4.2Sociolinguistic variation in Irish English
      • 2.4.3Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Variation in understanding
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Sociolinguistic methods
    • 3.2Cross-linguistic spatial methods
    • 3.3Cognitive mapping methods
    • 3.4The current study
      • 3.4.1Recruitment
      • 3.4.2Participants
      • 3.4.3Transcription
      • 3.4.4Coding
      • 3.4.5Questionnaire
  • 4.Results and analysis
    • 4.1Case studies
    • 4.2Interviews
      • 4.2.1Location metaphors
    • 4.3Questionnaires
      • 4.3.1Location metaphor summary
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 16 October 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.4.1.03luc
References (39)
References
Berman, R., & Slobin, D. (1994). Relating events in narrative: a crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1996). The origins of children’s spatial semantic categories: Cognitive versus linguistic determinants. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 145–176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, L. A., & Hill, P. L. (2007). Experimental methods for studying language and space. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson, & M. J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics (pp. 250–276). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cassidy, F. G. (1977). Notes on nicknames for places in the United States. American Speech, 521, 19–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J. K. (2002). Studying language variation: An informal epistemology. In J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill & N. Schilling-Estes (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change (pp. 3–14). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chilton, P. (2010). Introduction. In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions (pp. 1–18). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Central Statistics Office of Ireland. (2012). Census 2011 population classified by area. Dublin: Stationary Office. [URL] (Last accessed on May 12 2016)
Coventry, K. R., & Prat-Sala, M. (2001). Object-specific function, geometry and the comprehension of “in” and “on”. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 131, 509–528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filppula, M. (1991). Urban and rural varieties of Hiberno-English. In J. Cheshire (Ed.), English around the world: Sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 51–60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y. (Eds.). (2010a.). Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010b). Introduction. In D. Geeraerts, G. Kristiansen, & Y. Peirsman (Eds.), Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics (pp. 1–20). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haviland, J. B. (1998). Guugu Yimithirr Cardinal Directions. Ethos, 261, 25–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickey, R. (2005). Dublin English: Evolution and change. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Irish English: History and present-day forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kerswill, P., & Williams, A. (2000). Creating a new town koiné – Children and language change in Milton Keynes. Language in Society, 291, 65–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kitchin, R., & Blades, M. (2002). The cognition of geographic space. London: I.B. Tauris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Language, mind, and culture: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kortmann, B., & Upton, C. (Eds.). (2008). Varieties of English. Volume 1: The British Isles. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, G., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). (2008a). Cognitive sociolinguistics. Language variation, cultural models, social systems. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008b). Introduction: Cognitive sociolinguistics: Rationale, methods and scope. In G. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems (pp. 1–20). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroeger, P. R. (2005). Analyzing grammar: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
(2001). Principles of linguistic change. Volume 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S., Meira, S., & The Language and Cognition Group, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. (2003). 'Natural concepts' in the spatial topological domain – Adpositional meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic typology. Language, 791, 485–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S., & Wilkins, D. (Eds.). (2006a). Grammars of space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006b). The background to the study of language and space. In S. Levinson & D. Wilkins (Eds.), Grammars of space (pp. 1–23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006c). Patterns in the data: towards a semantic typology of spatial description. In S. Levinson & D. Wilkins (Eds.), Grammars of space (pp. 512–552). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lucek, S. (2017). UP town and DOWN town: The INs and OUTs of how Navan residents conceptualise the town where they live. English Language Research, 21, 106–125.Google Scholar
Numbers [Computer software]. (2015).Google Scholar
Pages [Computer software]. (2015).Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. A. (2010). Awesome insights into semantic variation. In D. Geeraerts, G. Kristiansen & Y. Peirsman (Eds.), Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics (pp. 85–110). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schilling-Estes, N. (2007). Sociolinguistic fieldwork. In R. Bayley & C. Lucas (Eds.), Sociolinguistic variation: Theories, methods, and applications (pp. 165–189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solheim, R. (2009). Dialect development in a melting pot: The formation of a new culture and a new dialect in the industrial town of Høyanger. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 321, 191–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. (2006). Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wavelab LE 7 [Computer software]. (2011).Google Scholar
Wolf, H. -G., & Polzenhagen, F. (2009). World Englishes. A cognitive sociolinguistic approach. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Skichko, Anastasiia S., Sandrine Peraldi & Stephen Lucek
2023. “PEOPLE MATTER. FREEDOM MATTERS. PEACE MATTERS”: CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR ANALYSIS OF VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY’S SPEECHES. Alfred Nobel University Journal of Philology 2:26/2 ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo
Zadobrivscaia, O. F. & V. G. Egorova
2021. Categorization of Political Terms in the Image and Likeness of the Container. Bulletin of Kemerovo State University 23:3 ► pp. 773 ff. DOI logo
Lemghari, El Mustapha
2019. A metaphor-based account of semantic relations among proverbs. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 6:1 ► pp. 158 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 august 2024. 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.