Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 12:1 (2014) ► pp.193–222

A cognitive sociolinguistic approach to metaphor and denominative variation

A case study of marine biology terms

| University of Castile-La Mancha
| University of Granada
This research applied corpus analysis techniques to a corpus of marine biology texts in Peninsular Spanish (PS) and Latin American Spanish (LAS). The results explain why these varieties of Spanish have different designations for the same sea organism. The focus of our research was thus on types of formal onomasiological variation (Geeraerts, Grondelaers, & Bakema, 1994) and its pervasiveness in Spanish scientific discourse. Also addressed was the incidence of metaphor in specialized concept formation and designation. Domain-specific and standard strategies were used for the semi-automatic retrieval of metaphorical terms. The resulting qualitative and quantitative account of terminological diversity reflected the pervasiveness of intralingual denominative variation in scientific language and also identified its causes.
Keywords: metaphor, cognitive sociolinguistics, intralingual variation
Published online: 23 April 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.12.1.07ure
References (59)
Aguilar, A. (1989). A record of two humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in the western Mediterranean Sea. Marine Mammal Science, 5(3), 306–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alvar López, M. (1975). La terminología canaria de los seres marinos. Anuario de Estudios Atlánticos , 251, 419-470.Google Scholar
Alvial, A., & Manríquez, J. (1999). Diversification of flatfish culture in Chile. Aquaculture, 1761, 65–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertaccini, F., Massari, M., & Castagnoli, S. (2010). Synonymy and variation in the domain of digital terrestrial television: Is Italian at risk? In M. Thelen & F. Steurs (Eds.), Terminology in everyday life (pp. 11-20). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bretos, M. (1978). Growth in the keyhole limpet Fissurella crassa Lamarck (Mollusca: Archaeogastropoda) in Northern Chile. The Veliger, 21(2), 268–273.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and language use . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boquera, M. (2005). Las metáforas en textos de ingeniería civil: Estudio contrastivo español-inglés . Doctoral dissertation, University of Valencia.Google Scholar
Caballero, R. (2006). Reviewing space: Figurative language in architects’ assessment of built space . Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis . New York: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charteris-Black, J., & Musolff, A. (2003). ‘Battered hero’ or ‘innocent victim’?: A comparative study of metaphors for euro trading in British and German financial reporting. English for Specific Purposes , 221, 153-176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chun, L. (2002). A cognitive approach to up/down metaphors in English and shang/xia metaphors in Chinese. In B. Altenberg & S. Granger (Eds.), Lexis in contrast: Corpus-based approaches (pp. 151-174). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Coromines, J., & Pascual, J. A. (1991-1997). Diccionario crítico etimológico castellano e hispánico (6 vols). Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Cuvier, G. (1829). Le Règne Animal, distribué d’après son organisation, pour servir de base à l’histoire naturelle des animaux et d’introduction à l’anatomie comparée . Édition 2. Paris: Chez Déterville. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Da Silva, A. (2010). Measuring and parametrizing lexical convergence and divergence between European and Brazilian Portuguese. In D. Geeraerts, G. Kristiansen, & Y. Peirsman (pp. 41-84). Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics . Berlin: Mouton de Grutyer.Google Scholar
Dury, P., & Lervad, S. (2008). La variation synonymique dans la terminologie de l’énergie: approches synchronique et diachronique, deux études de cas. LSP and Professional Communication , 8(2), 66-79.Google Scholar
Feldman, J. (2006). From molecule to metaphor: A neural theory of language . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fernandes, C. (2004). Interactions between words and images in lexicography: Towards new multimedia dictionaries . Ph. D. dissertation, University of Nova Lisboa, Lisbon.Google Scholar
Fernández Casado, M., Mons, J. L., & Castillo, J. J. (2001). Yubarta (Megaptera novaengliae). In A. Franco & M. Rodríguez (Eds.), Libro rojo de los vertebrados amenazados de Andalucía (p. 262). Sevilla: Consejería de Medio Ambiente.Google Scholar
Fernández-Silva, S., Freixa, J., & Cabré, T. (2011). A proposed method for analysing the dynamics of cognition through term variation. Terminology , 17(1), 49-73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freixa, J. (2002). La variació terminològica: Anàlisi de la variació denominativa en textos de diferent grau d’especialització de l’àrea de medi ambient . Doctoral dissertation, University of Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
2005). Variación terminológica: ¿Por qué y para qué? Meta , 50(4), 1492-1421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006). Causes of denominative variation in terminology. Terminology , 12(1), 51-77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (1997). Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2006). Methodology in Cognitive Linguistics. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 21-50). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2010a). Schmidt redux: How systematic is the linguistic system if variation is rampant? In K. Boye & E. Engeberg-Pedersen (Eds.), Language usage and language structure (pp. 237-262). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2010b). Lexical variation in space. In P. Auer & J. E. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and space: An international handbook of linguistic variation (pp. 820-836). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P. (1994). The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y. (Eds.). (2010). Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguitics . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., & Speelman, D. (2010). Heterodox concept features and onomasiological heterogeneity in dialects. In D. Geeraerts, G. Kristiansen, & Y. Peirsman (Eds.), Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (pp. 23-40). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goźdź-Roszkowski, S. (2011). Explorations across languages and corpora . Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hamon, T., & Nazarenko, A. (2001). Detection of synonymy links between terms: experiment and results. In D. Bourigault, C. Jacquemin, & M. C. L'Homme (Eds.), Recent advances in computational terminology , vol. 2 (pp. 185-208). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hardie, A., Koller, V., Rayson, P., & Semino, E. (2007). Exploiting a semantic annotation tool for metaphor analysis. In Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2007 conference . Birmingham, AL.
Koller, V., Hardie, A, Rayson, P., & Semino, E. (2008). Using a semantic annotation tool for the analysis of metaphor in discourse. Metaphorik , 151, 141-160.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation . New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006). Language, mind, and culture: A practical introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, G. (2008). Style-shifting and shifting styles. In G. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, cocial systems (pp. 45-88). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, G., & Dirven, R. (Eds.) (2008). Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202-251). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by . Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought . New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lapesa, R. (1942). Historia de la lengua española . Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mason, Z. (2004). CorMet: A computational, corpus-based conventional metaphor extraction system. Computational Linguistics , 30(1), 23-44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyen, F. J. F. (1833). Beiträge zur Zoologie, gesammelt auf einer Reise um de Erde. Zweite Abhandlung. Säugethiere. IV. Walle. Cetacea. Verhandlungen der Kaiserlichen Leopoldisnisch-Carolinischen Akademie der Naturforscher, 16(2), 609–610.Google Scholar
Montagu, G. (1821). Description of a species of Delphinus, which appears to be new. Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural History Society, 31, 75–82.Google Scholar
Pederson, E. (1998). Spatial language, reasoning, and variation across Tamil communities. In P. Zima & V. Tax (Eds.), Language and location in space and time (pp. 111-119). Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Ringuelet, A. R. (1967). Los peces argentinos de agua dulce. Comisión de Investigación Científica (Gobernación) Provincia de Buenos Aires. La Plata: Dirección de Impresiones del Estado y Boletín Oficial.Google Scholar
Sardinha, B. (2008). Metaphor probabilities in corpora. In S. Zanotto, L. Cameron, & M. Cavalcanti (Eds.), Confronting metaphor in use (pp. 127-148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Semino, E. (2006). A corpus-based study of metaphors for speech activity in British English. In A. Stefanowitsch & S. T. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 36-63). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Speelman, D., Grondelaers, S., & Geeraerts, D. (2003). Profile-based linguistic uniformity as a generic method for comparing language varieties. Computers and the Humanities , 371, 317-337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suárez, M. (2004). Análisis contrastivo de la variación denominativa en textos especializados: Del texto original al texto meta . Barcelona: Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Temmerman, R., & Kerremans, K. (2003). Termontography: Ontology building and the Sociocognitive Approach to terminology description. Prague CIL17- conference . [URL]. Accessed 23 April 2012.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition . Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Trim, R. (2011). Metaphor and the historical evolution of conceptual mapping . Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ureña, J. M., & Faber, P. (2010). Reviewing imagery in resemblance and non-resemblance metaphors. Cognitive Linguistics , 21(1), 123-149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011). Strategies for the semi-automatic retrieval of metaphorical terms. Metaphor and Symbol , 26(1), 23-52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ureña, J. M., & Tercedor, M. (2011). Situated metaphor in scientific discourse: An English-Spanish contrastive study. Languages in Contrast , 11(2), 216-240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Hawkins, Spencer
2018. Invisible terminology, visible translations: the New Penguin Freud translations and the case against standardized terminology. The Translator 24:3 ► pp. 233 ff. DOI logo
Fernández-Silva, Sabela
2016. The cognitive and rhetorical role of term variation and its contribution to knowledge construction in research articles. Terminology. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication 22:1 ► pp. 52 ff. DOI logo
Ureña Gómez-Moreno, José Manuel
2016. Refining the understanding of novel metaphor in specialised language discourse. Terminology. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication 22:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Theoretical Perspectives on Terminology [Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice, 23], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 september 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.