Cover not available
Article published In:
Languages in Contrast
Vol. 23:1 (2023) ► pp.1–33

Body part metaphors in phraseological expressions

A comparative survey of Italian, Spanish, French and English

ORCID logo | Università degli Studi Roma Tre (Italy)
ORCID logo | Università degli Studi Roma Tre (Italy)
ORCID logo | Università degli Studi Roma Tre (Italy)
The paper addresses the employment of body part nouns in the creation of phraseological expressions of some European languages, a topic at the crossroads of language, cognition and culture. In particular, the contrastive analysis explores the common linguistic representation of meanings through body part metaphorical expressions in Italian, French, Spanish and English. While several efforts to gauge the existence of a “European linguistic type” (cf. Haspelmath, 2001) have been largely devoted to the study of grammatical structures, a systematic account of the lexical component of the major European languages has not been attempted yet. Among the lexical units, phraseological expressions (e.g. compounds, multiword units, idiomatic expressions, as well as light verb and light noun constructions) represent a relevant ground to inquire into, since they are the most transparent and authentic vehicle of common ideas and experiences gradually rooted in European communicative realities.
Keywords: phraseological expressions, body part nouns, metaphorical relations, European languages, Italian/Spanish/French/English
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1Body part nouns in metaphorical expressions
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Semantic properties
  • 4.Data extraction
  • 5.Semantic mapping
    • 5.1Spatial orientation
    • 5.2Spatial hierarchy
    • 5.3Social hierarchy
    • 5.4Intellect
    • 5.5Possession
    • 5.6Control
    • 5.7Activity
    • 5.8Language faculty
    • 5.9Perceiving is knowing
    • 5.10Group of people
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
  • Sitography
Published online: 26 August 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.21006.gan
References (65)
References
Bazzanella, C. 2014. Linguistica cognitiva. Un’introduzione. Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Benigni, V., Ramusino Cotta, P., Mollica, F. and Schafroth, E. 2015. How to Apply CxG to Phraseology: A Multilingual Research Project. Journal of Social Sciences 11(3): 275–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosque, I. 2004. REDES. Diccionario combinatorio del español contemporáneo. Madrid: Ediciones SM.Google Scholar
2006. Práctico. Diccionario combinatorio práctico del español contemporáneo. Madrid: Ediciones SM.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casadei, F. 1995. Per una definizione di «espressione idiomatica» e una tipologia dell’idiomatico in italiano. Lingua e stile XXX(2): 335–358.Google Scholar
2003. Lessico e semantica. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. 1995. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Knop, S. 2021. The integration of frequency dimensions and lexicalization preferences in contrastive analysis. Paper presented at the International Contrastive Linguistics Conference (ICLC9) , Italy, 13–15 May 2021.
Detges, U. and Waltereit, R. 2002. Grammaticalization vs. Reanalysis: A Semantic-Pragmatic Account of Functional Change in Grammar. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 211: 151–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrovol’skij, D. O. and Piirainen, E. 2005. Figurative Language: Cross-Cultural and Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Evans, N. 2010. Semantic Typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Typology, J. J. Sung (ed.), 504–533. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feldweg, H. and Breidt, E. 1996. COMPASS. An Intelligent Dictionary System for Reading Text in a Foreign Language. In Papers in Computational Lexicography: COMPLEX ’96, F. Kiefer, G. Kiss and J. Pajzs (eds). Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Ganfi, V. and Piunno, V. 2017. Preposizioni complesse in italiano antico e contemporaneo. Grammaticalizzazione, schematismo e produttività. Archivio Glottologico Italiano CII (2): 184–204.Google Scholar
2019. Costruzioni a verbo supporto con nomi di parti del corpo in italiano antico e contemporaneo. In Verbi supporto, fenomeni e teorie, A. Pompei and L. Mereu (eds), 187–222. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Gargett, A. and Barnden, J. 2015. Gen-Meta: Generating Metaphors by Combining AI and Corpus-Based Modeling. Web Intelligence 13(2): 103–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D. and Fischer, K. (eds) 2010. Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven Approaches. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goddard, C. 2002. Whorf meets Wierzbicka: Variation and Universals in Language and Thinking. Language Sciences 25(4): 393–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grezka, A. 2021. Variabilité et traitement automatique des langues. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 43(2): 280–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2001. The European Linguistic Area: Standard Average European. In Language Typology and Language Universals, M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher and W. Raible (eds), 1492–1510. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2002. Word Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. and Traugott, E. C. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackson, H. and Zé Amvela, E. 2007. Words, Meaning and Vocabulary. An Introduction to Modern English Lexicology. London: Continuum International. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakubíček, M., Kilgarriff, A., Kovář, V., Rychlý, P. and Suchomel, V. 2013. The TenTen Corpus Family. Proceedings of the Seventh International Corpus Linguistics Conference (CL 2013). Lancaster, United Kingdom, 23–26 July 2013. 125–127.Google Scholar
Kay, P. 1992. At least. In Frames, Fields, and Contrasts, A. Lehrer, E. Feder Kittay and R. Lehrer (eds), 309–331. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P. and Suchomel, V. 2014. The Sketch Engine: Ten Years on. Lexicography 11: 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Konecny, C. 2018. Valenza e coesione collocazionale: osservazioni su alcuni punti di intersezione tra due fenomeni interrelati. In La grammatica delle valenze, S. Dallabrida and P. Cordin (eds), 143–161. Firenze: Franco Casati Editore.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M., Vanhove, M. and Koch, P. 2007. Typological Approaches to Lexical Semantics. Linguistic Typology 111: 159–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kovecses, Z. 2000. Metaphor and Emotion: Language, Culture, and Body in Human Feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krzeszowski, T. P. 1981. Quantitative Contrastive Equivalence. Studia Linguistica 351: 102–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind & its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Le Fur, D. 2008. Dictionnaire des combinaisons de mots: les synonymes en contexte. Paris: Le Robert.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. [1982]1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Lindquist, H. and Levin, M. 2008. Foot and Mouth. The Phrasal Patterns of two Frequent Nouns. In Phraseology. An Interdisciplinary Perspective, S. Granger and F. Meunier (eds), 143–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018. Corpus Linguistics and the Description of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Lo Cascio, V. 2013. Dizionario Combinatorio Italiano. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellado Blanco, C. 1999. La metáfora en la formación de fraseologismos alemanes y españoles: las metáforas locales. Paremia 81: 333–338.Google Scholar
2004. Fraseologismos somáticos del alemán. Un estudio léxico-semántico. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2020. Esquemas fraseológicos y construcciones fraseológicas en el contínuum léxico-gramática. In Clases y categorías en la fraseología española, C. Sinner, E. Tabares Plasencia and E. T. Montoro del Arco (eds), 13–36. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2020. Nuevas aportaciones de la Gramática de Construcciones a los estudios de fraseología en las lenguas románicas. Romanica Olomucensia 32(1): 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. 2019. Constructions are Patterns and so are Fixed Expressions. In Patterns in Language and Linguistics, B. Busse and R. Möhlig-Falke (eds), 193–220. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mogorrón Huerta, P., Grezka, A. and Navarro-Brotons, L. 2021. Les variations diatopiques dans les expressions figées. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 43(2): 169–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mol, S. 2004. Head and Heart: Metaphors and Metonymies in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. In Translation and Corpora, K. Aijmer and H. Hasselgård (eds), 87–112. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Panther, K. U. and Thornburg, L. L. 2007. Metonymy. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens (eds), 236–263. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peirsman, Y. and Geeraerts, D. 2006. Metonymy as a Prototypical Category. Cognitive Linguistics 17(3): 269–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piirainen, E. 2008. Figurative Phraseology and Culture. In Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, S. Granger and F. Meunier (eds), 207–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Widespread Idioms in Europe and Beyond: Toward a Lexicon of Common Figurative Units. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piunno, V. 2018. Sintagmi preposizionali con funzione aggettivale e avverbiale. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Piunno, V. and Ganfi, V. 2019. Usage-Based Account of Italian Complex Prepositions Denoting the Agent. Revue Romane 54(1): 141–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021. Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis of Prepositional Multiword Modifiers across Romance Languages. Lingvisticae Investigationes 43(2): 352–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruthrof, H. 2000. The Body in Language. London: The Cassell Press.Google Scholar
Savary, A., Sailer, M., Parmentier, Y., Rosner, M., Rosén, V., Przepiórkowski, V., Krstev, C., Vincze, V., Wójtowicz, B., Losnegaard, G., Parra Escartín, C., Waszczuk, J., Constant, M., Osenova, P., Sangati, F. 2015. PARSEME–PARSing and Multiword Expressions within a European Multilingual Network. Proceeding of the Seventh Language & Technology Conference (LTC ’15). Poznań, Poland, 27–29 November 2015. 27–29.Google Scholar
Schafroth, E. 2020. Fraseologismi a schema fisso – basi teoriche e confronto linguistico. Romanica Olomucensia 32(1): 173–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simone, R. 2007. Constructions and Categories in Verbal and Signed Languages. In Verbal and Signed Languages. Comparing Structures, Constructs, and Methodologies, E. Pizzuto, P. Pietrandrea and R. Simone (eds), 198–252. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Simone, R. and Masini, M. 2007. Support Nouns and Verbal Features: A Case Study from Italian. Verbum 29(1): 143–172.Google Scholar
Simone, R. and Piunno, V. 2017. Combinazioni che costituiscono entrata. Rappresentazione lessicografica e aspetti lessicologici. Studi e saggi linguistici 55(2): 13–44.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. 1999. A Way with Common Words. In Out of Corpora. Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson, H. Hasselgård and S. Oksefjell (eds), 157–179. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. 2007. Quantitative Data on Multi-Word Sequences in English: The Case of the Word World. In Text, Discourse and Corpora, M. Hoey, M. Mahlberg, M. Stubbs and W. Teubert (eds), 163–189. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Steyer, K. (ed.) 2018. PREPCON. Präposition-Nomen-Verbindungen im Kontext. Ein Blick in die Projektwerkstatt. Teil II. SDS-Bd. Sprachliche Verfestigung. Wortverbindungen, Muster, Phrasem-Konstruktionen. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 2007. Bodies and their Parts: An NSM Approach to Semantic Typology. Language Sciences 291: 14–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zipf, G. K. 1965[1949]. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. New York: Hafner.Google Scholar
Sitography
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Ivorra Ordines, Pedro & Maricel Esteban Fonollos
2023. Hasta los huesos, bis in die Knochen. Construcciones fraseológicas somáticas en contraste a través de corpus. Revista de Filología Alemana 31 ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.