Cover not available
Part of
Conceptual Metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues
Edited by Olga Blanco-Carrión, Antonio Barcelona and Rossella Pannain
[Human Cognitive Processing 60] 2018
► pp. 205–236

Chapter 8
The role of metonymy in the constructionist approach to the conceptualization of emotions

 | University of Rijeka
Based on the corpus analysis of the conceptualization of strah ‘fear’ in Croatian, this chapter demonstrates that the conceptual structure of emotions emerges from syntactic and semantic organization activated by sensory-motor, ontological, spatial, thematic and agentive linguistic constructions. The proposed emergent constructionist model argues for a hierarchal organization of the metonymic and metaphorical conceptualizations. In terms of cognitive hierarchy, the model shows that sensory-motor metonymic profiling is the most basic, distinctive and, therefore, the most informative mechanism of conceptualizing emotions because it conveys knowledge about the affective state, enabling simulations of the quality of a specific emotion category, while additional metaphorical mechanisms build on metonymic conceptualizations using other general cognitive abilities expressing knowledge about objects, properties, relations and events.
Keywords: cognitive hierarchy, emergent constructionist model, fear, sensory-motor metonymies
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Epistemological and ontological problems of the conceptualization of emotions
    • 1.2Embodied perspective on the communication of emotions
    • 1.3Linguistic constructions of emotions
      • 1.3.1Metaphorical construal of emotions
      • 1.3.2Metonymic construal of emotions
  • 2.Emergent constructionist model of the conceptualization of fear in Croatian
    • 2.1Sensory-motor metonymic constructions
      • 2.1.1Sensory domains
      • 2.1.2Body domains
      • 2.1.3Conclusion of sensory-motor metonymic constructions
    • 2.2Ontological constructions
    • 2.3Spatial constructions
    • 2.4Thematic constructions
    • 2.5Agentive constructions
  • 3.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 May 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.08per
References (111)
References
Apresjan, V. 1997. Emotion metaphors and cross-linguistic conceptualization of emotions. Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa, 612, 179–195.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A. 2000. Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
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 (223–255). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barrett, L. F., & Lindquist, K. 2008. The embodiment of emotion. In G. Semin, & E. Smith (Eds.), Embodied grounding: social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscience approaches (237–262). New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barrett, L. F. 2011. Constructing Emotion. Psychological Topics 20(3), 359–380.Google Scholar
Barrett, L. F., Gendron, M., & Huang, Y. M. 2009. Do discrete emotions exist? Philosophical Psychology 22(4), 427–437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. 2008. Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B. 2005. Mental simulation in literal and figurative language. In S. Coulson & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), The literal and non-literal in language and thought (255–278). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2007. Experimental methods for simulation semantics. In M. González-Márquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson, & M. J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics (277–301). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berlin, B., & Kay, P. 1969. Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Brdar, M. 2007. Topic continuity, metonymy and locative adverbials: A cognitive functional account. Suvremena Lingvistika, 63, 13–29.Google Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. 2011. What do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of metonymy? In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.) Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, O. 2002. Visceral sensory neuroscience. Interoception. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cannon, W. B. 1927. The James-Lange theory of emotions: A critical examination and an alternative theory. American Journal of Psychology, 39, 106–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. 2004. Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalgeish, T. 2004. The emotional brain. Nature 5, 582–589.Google Scholar
Damásio, A. 1994. Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. G. P. Putnam & Sons.Google Scholar
1999. The feeling of what happens body and emotion in the making of consciousness. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Darwin, Ch. 1872. The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deignan, A. 2005. Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson. R.J., Scherer, K., Goldsmith, H. 2003. Handbook of affective sciences. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., & Pörings, R. 2003. Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ekman, P., & Davidson, R. J. 1994. The nature of emotion. fundamental questions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ekman, P. 2003. Emotions revealed. Recognizing faces and feelings to improve communication and emotional life. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
Evans, V. 2009. How words mean. Lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
Feldman, J., & Narayanan, S. 2004. Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language. Brain and Language 89(2), 385–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feldman, J. 2006. From molecule to metaphor. A neural theory of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Ch., & Atkins, B. T. 1992. Toward a frame-based lexicon: the semantics of RISK and its neighbours. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts (75–102). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Ch. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Eds.) Linguistics in the morning calm (111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Ch. J. 2002. FrameNet and the linking between semantic and syntactic relations. In COLING 2002, Proceedings.Google Scholar
Fischer, M., & Zwaan, R. A. 2008. Embodied language: A review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 61(6), 825–850. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fontaine, J. R. J., Scherer, K. R., & Soriano, C. 2013. Components of emotional meaning: A sourcebook. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franks, D. D., & Turner, J. H. 2013. Handbook of neurosociology. Dordrecht & Heidelberg & New York, London: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. 1994. The poetics of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2005. Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goossens, L. ([1990] 2003) Metaptonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hampe, B. 2005. From perception to meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hurley, S., & Chater, N. 2005. Imitation, human development, and culture. Volume 2. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Iacoboni, M. 2008. Mirroring people: The new science of how we connect with others. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
2009. The problem of other minds is not a problem: Mirror neurons and intersubjectivity. In J. Pineda (Ed.), Mirror neuron systems. The role of mirroring processes in social cognition (121–134). New York: Humana Press.Google Scholar
Indurkhya, B. 1992. Metaphor and cognition. An interactionist approach. Dordrecht & Boston & London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izard, C. 2007. Basic emotions, natural kinds, emotion schemas, and a new paradigm. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2(3), 260–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, G. H. 1993. The distribution and nature of colour vision among the mammals. Biological Reviews of Cambridge Philosophical Society 68, 413–471. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
James, W. 1884. What is an Emotion? Mind 9, 188–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1890. Principles of psychology. New York: Holt. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. 2005. The philosophical significance of image schemas. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning. Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (15–33). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmerer, D., & González-Castillo, J. 2010. The two-level theory of verb meaning: An approach to integrating the semantics of action with the mirror neuron system. Brain & Language, 112, 54–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. 1988. The language of love: The semantics of passion in conversational English. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press.Google Scholar
1990. Emotion concepts. New York: Springer-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991. Happiness: A definitional effort. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 6, 29–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995. Anger: Its language, conceptualization, and physiology in the light of cross-cultural evidence. In J. Taylor & R. E. MacLaury (Eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world (181–196). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Metaphor and emotion. Language, culture, and body in human feeling. New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
2002. Metaphor. A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2005. Metaphor in culture. Universality and variation. New York: Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., Palmer, G. B., & Dirven, R. 2003. Language and emotion: The interplay of conceptualisation with physiology and culture. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (133–160). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kovecses, Z. 2010. Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., Szelid, V., Nucz, E., Blanco-Carrión, O., Akkök, E. A., & Szabó, R. 2015. Anger metaphors across languages: A cognitive linguistic perspective. In R. R. Heredia & A. B. Cieślicka (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing (341–368). New York: Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. [1980] 2003. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. The neural theory of metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Neural social science. In D. D. Franks & J. H. Turner (Eds.), Handbook of Neurosociology (9–25). Dordrecht & Heidelberg & New York, London: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Kövecses, Z. 1987. The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (195-221). New York: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2008. Cognitive Grammar. An introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M., Haviland-Jones, J. M., & Barrett, L. F. 2008. The handbook of emotion, 3rd Edition. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Lindquist, K. A., Siegel, E. H., Quigley, K., & Barrett, L. F. 2013. The hundred years emotion war: Are emotions natural kinds or psychological constructions? Comment on Lench, Flores, & Bench 2011. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 255–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, K. A., & Barrett, L. F. 2012. A functional architecture of the human brain: Insights from emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 533–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J. 2015. Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lutz, C. 1988. Unnatural emotions: Everyday sentiments on a Micronesian atoll and their challenge to western theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
MacLean, P. 1952. Psychiatric implications of physiological studies on frontotemporal portion of limbic system (visceral brain). Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl., 4, 407–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990. The triune brain in evolution: Role in paleocerebral functions. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Nieuwenhuys, R., Voogd, J., & Van Huijzen, C. 2007. The human central nervous system. Berlin & Heidelberg & New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Oberman, L. M., & Ramachandran, V. S. 2009. Reflections on the mirror neuron system: Their evolutionary functions beyond motor representation. In J. Pineda (Ed.), Mirror neuron systems. The role of mirroring processes in social cognition (39–62). New York: Humana Press.Google Scholar
Oster, U. 2010. Using corpus methodology for semantic and pragmatic analyses: What can corpora tell us about the linguistic expression of emotions? Cognitive Linguistics 21(4), 727–763 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. “Angst” and “fear” in contrast: A corpus-based analysis of emotion concepts. In M. Brdar, I. Raffaelli, & M. Žic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics between universality and variation. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Panksepp, J. 1998. Affective neuroscience. The foundations of human and animal emotions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2005. On the embodied neural nature of core emotional affects. Journal of Consciousness Studies 12(8–10), 158–84Google Scholar
2007. Affective consciousness. In M. Velmans & S. Schneider (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to consciousness. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U., Thornburg, L., & Barcelona, A. 2009. Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papez, J. W. 1937. A proposed mechanism of emotion. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 7, 103–12.Google Scholar
Perak, B. 2014. Opojmljivanje leksema strah u hrvatskome: sintaktičko-semantička analiza. Dissertation. Zagreb: University of Zagreb.Google Scholar
Planalp, S. 1998. Communicating emotion in everyday life: cues, channels, and processes. In P. Andersen & L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion. Research, theory, application, and contexts. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Radden, G. 2003. How metonymic are metaphors? In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (407-434). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. 1999. Towards a theory of metonymy. InK. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (17-59). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzolatti, G., & Sinigaglia, C. 2008. Mirrors in the brain. How we share our actions and emotions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. 1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. 1977. Human categorization. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in cross–linguistic psychology (1–49). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., Mervis, C., Gray, W., Johnson, D., & Boyes-Braem, P. 1976. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schachter, S., & Singer, J. E. 1962. Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychological Review 69, 379–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scherer, K. R., 2009. Emotions are emergent processes: they require a dynamic computational architecture. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society, 364, 3459–3474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
, 2013. Measuring the meaning of emotion words: A domain-specific componential approach. In J. R. J. Fontaine, K. R. Scherer, & C. Soriano (Eds.), Components of emotional meaning: A sourcebook. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silić, J., & Pranjković, I. 2005. Gramatika hrvatskoga jezika za gimnazije i visoka učilišta. Zagreb: Školska knjiga.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. 2004. Happiness in English and German. A metaphorical-pattern analysis. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2006. Words and their metaphors: A corpus-based approach. In A. Stefanowitsch & S. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. 2006. Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K. 2013. Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 2000. Towards a cognitive semantics ( second volume ). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, R. 1995 [1989]. Linguistic categorization, prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford University Press, Second Edition, New York.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. 1999. The cultural origins of human cognition. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. 1991. The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. 2005. Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2007. Construal and perspectivization. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1992. Semantics, culture, and cognition: Universal human concepts in culture-specific configurations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ziemke, T., Zlatev, J., & Frank, R. M. 2007. Body, language and mind. Volume 1: Embodiment. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J., Racine, T. P., Sinha, C., & Itkonen, E. 2008. Intersubjectivity: What makes us human? In J. Zlatev, T. P. Racine, C. Sinha, & E. Itkonen (Eds), Shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity (1–16). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar