Article published in:
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 27:1 (2014) ► pp. 187–207

Mapping concepts

Understanding figurative thought from a cognitive-linguistic perspective

| University of La Rioja
The notion of “conceptual mapping”, as a set of correspondences between conceptual domains, was popularized in Cognitive Semantics, following seminal work by Lakoff & Johnson (1980), as a way of accounting for the basic cognitive activity underlying metaphor and metonymy. Strangely enough, Cognitive Semantics has paid little, if any, attention to other cases of so-called figurative language such as hyperbole, irony, paradox, and oxymoron. This paper contends that it is possible to account for these and other figures of thought in terms of the notion of conceptual mapping. It argues that the differences between these and other figurative uses of language are a matter of the nature of the domains involved in mappings and how they are made to correspond. Additionally, this paper examines constraints on mappings and concludes that the same factors that constrain metaphor and metonymy are operational in the case of mappings for the other figures of thought under discussion.
Keywords: mapping, metaphor, figures of thought, constraints on mappings, metonymy
Published online: 08 August 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.27.1.08rui
References

References

Barcelona, A.
(2014) Metonymy. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (forthcoming). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Clark, H., & Gerrig, R.
(1984) On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 121–126. Reprinted in Gibbs and Colston (2007, pp. 25-33.). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J.
(2010) Looking back at 30 years of Cognitive Linguistics. In E. Tabakowska, M. Choiński, & L. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics in action: From theory to application and back (pp. 13–70). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Edwards, D.
(2000) Extreme case formulations: Softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(4), 347–373. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V.
(2013) Metaphor, lexical concepts, and figurative meaning construction. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1-2), 73–107.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G.
(1997) Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R.W.
(2011) Evaluating conceptual metaphor theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529–562. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R.W., & Colston, H.
(Eds.) (2007) Irony in language and thought: A cognitive science reader. New York: Elbaum.Google Scholar
Grady, J.
(1997) Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. In R.W. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hampe, B.
. (In cooperation with Grady, J) (Ed.) (2005) From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M.
(1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kreuz, R.J., & Caucci, G.M.
(2009) Social aspects of verbal irony use. In H. Pishwa (Ed.), Language and social cognition: Expression of the social mind (pp. 325–348). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1990) The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought, 2nd. ed. (pp. 202–251). Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) The neural theory of metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M.
(1989) More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G.
(1969) A linguistic guide to English poetry. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Niño, D., & Serventi, G.
(2013) Cognitive type and visual metaphorical expression. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1-2), 367–392.Google Scholar
Norrick, N.R.
(2004) Hyperbole, extreme case formulation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(9), 1727–1739. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oakley, T.
(2007) Image schemas. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 214–235). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peña, S.
(2003) Topology and cognition: What image-schemas reveal about the metaphorical language of emotions. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
(2008) Dependency systems for image-schematic patterns in a usage-based approach to language. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(6), 1041–1066. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peña, S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J.
(2009) Metonymic and metaphoric bases of two image-schema transformations. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 339–361). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A.
(1986) Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9(2-3), 219–229. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J.
(1998) On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 259–274. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona Sánchez, & F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.) Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 103–124). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) On the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explanation: Towards settling some controversies. In J. Taylor & J. Littlemore (Eds.), Companion to cognitive linguistics (forthcoming). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Pérez, L.
(2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 161–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Santibáñez, F.
(2003) Content and formal cognitive operations in construing meaning. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15(2), 293–320.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
(1998) Irony and relevance. A reply to Seto, Hamamoto and Yamanashi. In R. Carston & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance theory: Applications and implications (pp. 283–293). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tendahl, M., & Gibbs. R.W.
(2008) Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1823–1864. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Valenzuela, J., & Soriano, C.
(2005) Cognitive metaphor and empirical methods. Barcelona English Language and Literature Studies, 14 (online access at http://​www​.publicacions​.ub​.edu​/revistes​/bells14/).Google Scholar
Wilson, D.
(2006) The pragmatics of verbal irony: Echo or pretence? Lingua, 116, 1722–1743. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Carston, R.
(2007) Metaphor and the ‘emergent property’ problem: A relevance theoretic treatment. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 3, 1–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
(2012) Explaining irony. In D. Wilson & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (pp. 123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Barnden, John A.
2017.  In Irony in Language Use and Communication [Figurative Thought and Language, 1], ► pp. 145 ff. Crossref logo
Crespo-Fernández, Eliecer & Carmen Luján-García
2017. Anglicisms and word axiology in homosexual language. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 30:1 ► pp. 74 ff. Crossref logo
Peña Cervel, María Sandra
2016. Argument structure and implicational constructions at the crossroads. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 14:2 ► pp. 474 ff. Crossref logo
Peña Cervel, María Sandra & Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez
2017.  In Studies in Figurative Thought and Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 56], ► pp. 42 ff. Crossref logo
Popa-Wyatt, Mihaela
2020.  In Producing Figurative Expression [Figurative Thought and Language, 10], ► pp. 449 ff. Crossref logo
Rasulić, Katarina
2020.  In The Language of Crisis [Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, 87], ► pp. 111 ff. Crossref logo
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José
2017.  In Irony in Language Use and Communication [Figurative Thought and Language, 1], ► pp. 179 ff. Crossref logo
Timofeeva-Timofeev, Larissa & Chelo Vargas-Sierra
2015. On terminological figurativeness. Terminology. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication 21:1 ► pp. 102 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 january 2021. 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.