Cover not available
Part of
Exploring Discourse Strategies in Social and Cognitive Interaction: Multimodal and cross-linguistic perspectives
Edited by Manuela Romano and Maria Dolores Porto
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 262] 2016
► pp. 187–213

Exploring specific differences

A cross-linguistic study of English and Spanish civil engineering metaphors

| Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
This chapter provides a cross-linguistic and multimodal study of some civil engineering zoomorphic metaphors in English and Spanish within a socio-cognitive and multimodal approach. This study thus aims to examine the interaction of multimodal (linguistic and visual) metaphoric and metonymic mappings (Forceville 2009, 2010) in some civil engineering zoomorphic examples. Principles from discourse analysis are applied (Semino 2008; Deignan 2005) by using contextualized and corpora-driven data. The results reveal lop-sided layers of metaphoricity merged with interacting metonymic patterns. In the cross-­linguistic analysis, significant variations appear between English and Spanish which may respond to lexical aspects of meaning construction patterns as well as sociocultural differences (Kövecses 2008).
Keywords: cross-linguistic study, engineering communication, linguistic/visual metaphor and metonymy, technical language analysis
Published online: 31 March 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.262.08rol
References
Alonso Belmonte, Isabel, Silvia Molina and M. Dolores Porto
2013 “Multimodal Digital Storytelling: Integrating Information, Emotion and Social Cognition”. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 11 (2): 369–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ASCE: American Society of Civil Engineers
2007 “Summit on the Future of the Civil Engineering Profession in 2025”. [URL] (Retrieved 2nd April 2013).
Barcelona, Antonio and Cristina Soriano
2002. “Metaphorical Conceptualization in English and Spanish”. European Journal of English Studies 8 (3): 295–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K.
1993 Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad and Pandi Reppen
2000 Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Blockley, David
2005. A New Dictionary of Civil Engineering. London: Penguin Reference.Google Scholar
Caballero, Rosario
2003. “Talking about Space: Image Metaphor in Architectural Discourse”. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 1: 89–108.Google Scholar
2014 “Thinking, Drawing and Writing Architecture through Metaphor”. Ibérica 28: 155–180.Google Scholar
Chun Jiang and Fan Yu
2008 “Cultural Metaphors in China: A Visual Experience of Hierarchy and Status Symbols”. Intercultural Communication Studies XVII (1): 71–78.Google Scholar
Cuadrado, Georgina, Irina Argüelles, Pilar Durán, María-José Gómez, Silvia Molina, 
Joana Pierce, María Mar Robisco, Ana Roldán-Riejos and Paloma Úbeda
2016. Bilingual Spanish-English and English-Spanish Dictionary of Scientific-Technical Metaphors and Metonymies. Engineering, Architecture and Physical Activities Science. London: Routledge.
Deignan, Alice
2005. Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durán, Pilar
1999 “Teaching Writing through Reading: A Text-Centered Approach”. Ibérica 1: 55–62.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman
2013 Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner
2002 The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Forceville, Charles J. and Eduardo Urios-Aparisi
(eds) 2009 “Introduction”. Multimodal Metaphor, 3–17. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forceville, Charles
2009 “Non-verbal and Multimodal Metaphor in a Cognitivist Framework: Agendas for Research”. In Multimodal Metaphor, ed. by Charles Forceville and Eduardo Urios-Aparisi (eds), 19–44. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “Why and How Study Metaphor, Metonymy, and Other Tropes in Multimodal Discourse”. In Ways and Modes of Human Communication, ed. by Rosario Caballero and María J. Pinar, 57–77. Cuenca: Ed. Universidad Castilla-La Mancha.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K.
1994 Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd edition). London: 
Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken
2006 “English for Specific Purposes: Some Influences and Impacts” In International Handbook of English Language Education, Part 1, ed. by Jim Cummins and Chris Davison, 391–402. Springer: Norwell Mass.Google Scholar
Johnston, Stephen, Alison Lee and Helen McGregor
1996 “Engineering as Captive Discourse”. PHIL & TECH 1 (3–4): 1–14. Available from: [URL](Retrieved: 17th February 2014).Google Scholar
Kanoksilapatham, Budsaba
2011 “Civil Engineering Research Article Introductions: Textual Structure and Linguistic Characterization”. The Asian ESP Journal 7 (2): 55–84.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltan
2008 “Universality and Variation in the Use of Metaphor”. In Selected Papers from the 2006 and 2007 Stockholm Metaphor Festivals, ed. by Nils Lennart Johannesson and David Minugh, 51–74. Stockholm: Department of English, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1993 “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor” In Metaphor and Thought. 2nd Edition, ed. by Andrew Ortony, 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George and Rafael Nuñez
2000 Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Martín-Herrero, Cristina
2009 “Notas sobre terminología de origen zoonímico en la Ingeniería renacentista”. Res Diachronicae 7: 251–260.Google Scholar
Molina, Silvia
2012 “Non-verbal Markers of Modality and Evidentiality in MarENG”. LFE: Revista de lenguas para fines específicos 18: 45–70.Google Scholar
Musolff, Andreas
2012 “The Study of Metaphor as Part of Critical Discourse Analysis”. Critical Discourse Studies 9: 3, 301–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ponderotto, Daniel
2003 “The Cohesive Role of Cognitive Metaphor in Conversation and Discourse” In Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective, ed. by Antonio Barcelona, 283–299. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poveda, Paloma
2010 “La estructura retórica de la memoria de arquitectura de divulgación: un análisis de género” [The rhetoric structure of the architecture annual report: a genre analysis]. Ibérica 19: 55–76.Google Scholar
Putnan, Robert and G.E. Carlsson
1988 Diccionario de Arquitectura, Construcción y Obras Públicas: Inglés- Español/Español-Inglés [Dictionary of Architecture, Construction and Public Works: English-Spanish/Spanish-English]. Madrid: Paraninfo.Google Scholar
Robisco, María-Mar and Georgina Cuadrado
2013 “Metaphor and Genre: An Approach to Improve the Learning Process of English for Aeronautics” RESLA 13 (1): 209–228.Google Scholar
Roldán-Riejos, Ana and Paloma Úbeda Mansilla
2013 “Metaphor in the ESP engineering context”. Ibérica 25: 107–126.Google Scholar
Roldán-Riejos, Ana
2013 “Types of metaphor in Civil Engineering Communication”. In Communication and Learning Context in LSP: New Perspectives on Genre Analysis, ed. by Ana Roldán-Riejos and Silvia Molina. Vol. 13 (1): 105–122. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada (RESLA).Google Scholar
Roldán-Riejos, Ana and Paloma Úbeda Mansilla
2006 “Metaphor Use in a Specific Genre of Engineering Discourse”. European Journal of Engineering Education 31 (5): 531–541. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roldán-Riejos, Ana
2004 “Strategic Features of ESP from a Socio-Cognitive perspective”. Ibérica 7: 33–51.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. and Olga I. Díez Velasco
2002 “Patterns of conceptual interaction”. In Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, ed. by René Dirven and Ralf Pörings, 489–453. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semino, Elena
2008 Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
St. Clair, Robert
2002 “Metaphorical Blends, Recruited Frames and Metaphors across Cultures”. Intercultural Communication Studies 11 (3): 1–24.Google Scholar
Swales, John
1990 Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2011 “The Concept of Discourse Community.” In: Writing About Writing: A College Reader, ed. by Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs, 466–480. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.Google Scholar
Úbeda Mansilla, Paloma
2002 “Metaphor at Work: A Study of Metaphors Used by European Architects when Talking about Their Projects”. Ibérica 5: 35–48.Google Scholar
Ungerer, Friedrich and Hans-Jorg Schmid
1996 An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. 
Oxford: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Ureña, José M.
2012 “Conceptual Types of Terminological Metaphors in Marine Biology: An English-Spanish Contrastive Analysis from an Experientialist Perspective”. In Metaphor in Use. Context, Culture and Communication, ed. by Fiona MacCarthur, José L. Oncins-Martinez, Manuel Sánchez-García and Ana-María Piquer-Piriz, 239–160. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Villacañas, Beatriz and Michael White
2013 “Pictorial Metonymy as Creative Source in ‘Purificación García’ Advertising Campaigns”. Metaphor and the Social World 3 (2): 220–239. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Geoffrey
2001 “Mediating between Lexis and Texts: Collocational Networks in Specialized Corpora”. ASp [En ligne]: 31–33. URL: [URL]. (Retrieved: 28th February 2014).Google Scholar
Yus, Francisco
2009 “Visual Metaphor versus Verbal Metaphor: A Unified Account”. In Multimodal Metaphor, ed. by Charles Forceville and Eduardo Urios-Aparisi, 147–173. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zinken, Jorg, Hellsten, Ilina, and Brigitte Nerlich
2008 “Discourse Metaphors”. In Body, Language, and Mind: Sociocultural Situatedness (Vol. 2), ed. by René Dirven, Roselyn Frank and Enrique Bernardez, 363–383. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Verschueren, Jef
2016. Contrastive pragmatics. In Handbook of Pragmatics, DOI logo
Verschueren, Jef
2022. Contrastive pragmatics. In Handbook of Pragmatics [Handbook of Pragmatics, ], ► pp. 349 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 november 2023. 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.