Cover not available
Article published In:
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 28:1 (2015) ► pp.97–117

Conceptual complexity in metaphorical resemblance operations revisited

| University of La Rioja

The present article is concerned with the analysis of so-called metaphoric resemblance operations. Our corpus of animal metaphors, as representative of resemblance metaphors, reveals that there are complex cognitive operations other than simple one-correspondence mappings that are necessary to understand the interpretation process of the selected expressions (which include metaphor and simile). We have identified a strong underlying situational component in many of the examples under scrutiny, which requires the metonymic expansion of the metaphoric source. Additionally, metaphoric amalgams (understood as the combination of the conceptual material from two or more metaphors) and high-level metonymy in interaction with low-level metaphor are also essential for the analysis of animal metaphors.

Keywords: resemblance, metaphor, metaphoric amalgam, metonymy, simile
Published online: 10 September 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.28.1.05gal
References (40)
Barcelona, A
(2000) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2005) The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains. In F. Ruiz de Mendoza & M.S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 313–352). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M
(1996) Blending as a central process in grammar. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp. 113–130). Stanford, CA: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
(1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Galera-Masegosa, A
(2010) Metaphoric complexes: A Spanish-English contrastive analysis of metaphor and metonymy in interaction. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 231, 175–194.Google Scholar
(2011) A contrastive analysis of cognitive operations underlying the interpretation of English and Spanish sayings. Paper presented at the International Conference Cognitive perspectives on contrastive grammar, University of Economics and Humanities, Bielsko-Biala, Poland, September 26-27, 2011.
Gibbs, R.W
(1994) The poetics of the mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2011) Evaluating conceptual metaphor theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R.W., & Steen, G
(1999) Metaphor in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S
(2001) Understanding figurative language: From metaphor to idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) On the relation between metaphor and simile: When comparison fails. Mind and Language, 21(3), 360–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goossens, L
(1990) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 349–378). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grady, J
(1999) A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. In R. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iza, A
(2012) Resemblance operations and conceptual complexity in animal metaphors. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 71.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z
(2000) Metaphor and emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Recent developments in metaphor theory: Are the new views rival ones? Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 11–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G
(1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77. 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, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M
(1989) More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B
(1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Peña, M.S
(2003) Topology and cognition: What image-schemas reveal about the metaphorical language of emotions. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J
(1998) On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 301, 259–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000) The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 109–132). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008) Cross-linguistic analysis, second language teaching and cognitive semantics: The case of Spanish diminutives and reflexive constructions. In S. De Knop & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar: Volume in honor of René Dirven (pp. 121–152). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Díez, O
(2002) Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–532). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Galera-Masegosa, A
(2011) Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value, 3(1), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Mairal, R
(2007) High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In G. Radden, K. Köpcke, M.T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 33–51). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Constraints on syntactic alternation: Lexical-constructional subsumption in the lexical-constructional model. In P. Guerrero (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English: Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 62–82). London, UK/Oakville, CT: Equinox.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Otal, J.L
(2002) Metonymy, grammar, and communication. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Pérez, L
(2001) Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 211, 321–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 261, 1–25.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Santibáñez Sáenz, F
(2003) Content and formal cognitive operations in construing meaning. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 2(15), 293–320.Google Scholar