Article published in:
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 30:1 (2017) ► pp. 299–324

Conceptual complexes in cognitive modeling

| University of La Rioja
The present paper goes beyond previous treatments of cognitive models, especially conceptual metaphor and metonymy, by drawing on linguistic evidence. It introduces needed refinements into previous meaning construction accounts by investigating the activity of conceptual complexes, i.e., combinations of cognitive models whose existence can be detected from a careful examination of the meaning effects of some linguistic expressions. This improvement endows the linguist with a more powerful set of analytical tools capable of dealing with a broader range of phenomena than previous theories. The paper first explores metaphoric and metonymic complexes, and their meaning effects. Then, it addresses the metonymic exploitation of frame complexes and image-schematic complexes. The resulting analytical apparatus proves applicable to the study of fictive motion and image-schema transformations, which have so far been addressed in Cognitive Linguistics without making explicit any relation between them or with other phenomena. We give evidence that these two phenomena can be dealt with as specific cases of metonymic domain expansion and domain reduction respectively. This means that fictive motion and image-schema transformations can be fully integrated into an encompassing account of cognitive modeling based on the activity of single or combined cognitive operations on basic or complex cognitive models.
Keywords: cognitive model, cognitive operation, fictive motion, image-schema transformation, image-schematic complex, metaphoric complex, metonymic complex
Keywords: complejos de esquemas de imágenes, complejo metafórico, complejo metonímico, modelo cognitivo, movimiento ficticio, operación cognitiva, transformaciones de esquemas de imágenes


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 23 November 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.30.1.12rui

Full-text

Conceptual complexes in cognitive modeling
References

References

Boas, H. C.
(2005) From theory to practice: Frame Semantics and the design of FrameNet. In S. Langer & D. Schnorbusch (Eds.), Semantik im lexikon (pp. 129–160). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–255.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Johnson, C. R., & Petruck, M. R. L.
(2003) Background to Framenet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 235–250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.
(2006) Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind & Language, 21(3), 434–458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Experimental tests of figurative meaning construction. In G. Radden, K. M. Köpke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.) Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 19–32). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529–562. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glebkin, V.
(2013) A critical view of Conceptual Blending Theory. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2404–2409). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Goossens, L.
(1990) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grady, J. E.
(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. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grady, J., Oakley, T., & Coulson, S.
(1999) Blending and metaphor. In G. Steen & R. W. Gibbs (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hampe, B.
(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
[ p. 322 ]
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume 1: Theoretical pre- requisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matlock, T.
(2004) The conceptual motivation of fictive motion. In G. Radden & K. -U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 221–248). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2010) Abstract motion is no longer abstract. Language and Cognition, 2(2), 243–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moore, K. E.
(2014) The two-mover hypothesis and the significance of “direction of motion” in temporal metaphors. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 375–409. CrossrefGoogle 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
Rao, S. M., Mayer, A. R., & Harrington, D. L.
(2001) The evolution of brain activation during temporal processing. Nature Neuroscience, 4(3), 317–323. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, D. C., & Matlock, T.
(2007) The integration of figurative language and static depictions: An eye movement study of fictive motion. Cognition, 102, 129–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(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
(2011) Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 103–123). 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. Littlemore & J. Taylor (Eds.), Bloomsbury companion to Cognitive Linguistics (143–166). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
(2017) Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: From basicity to complexity. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition, and discourse (pp. 138–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 323 ]
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez, O. I.
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A.
(2011) Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value, 3(1), 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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
Talmy, L.
(2000a) Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume I: Concept structuring system. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000b) Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2007) Attention phenomena. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 264–293). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2014) Concept structuring systems in language. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Vol. II. (pp. 15–46). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Veale, T.
(2005) Incongruity on humor: Root cause or epiphenomenon? Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 17(4), 419–428.[ p. 324 ]Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Haddad Haddad & Montero-Martínez
2019. The ‘Carbon Capture’ Metaphor: An English-Arabic Terminological Case Study. Languages 4:4 ► pp. 77 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.