Abstracts: Workshops/Colloquia
Delimiting and defining metonymy from a cognitive-linguistic perspective
Coordinator: Antonio Barcelona, University of Córdoba, Spain
Other participants: John Barnden (University of Birmingham (United Kingdom), Dirk
Geeraerts (Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium), Zoltán Kövecses, Eötvos Loránd
University (Hungary), Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza, University of La Rioja, Spain
Day and time: 30th May 12.30
Room: 10
The term (conceptual) metonymy is a fundamental technical concept in cognitive
linguistics. In traditional rhetoric and in other linguistic approaches, it is considered as a
fundamentally lexico-semantic phenomenon. A large body of cognitive-linguistic
research (as represented, among many others, by the relevant publications of Lakoff,
Fauconnier, Gibbs, Langacker, Panther, Thornburg, Radden, Kövecses, Barcelona,
Mario and Rita Brdar and Ruiz de Mendoza) has shown that conceptual metonymy
motivates, guides or constrains, to varying degrees, important aspects of a great many
other conceptual and linguistic phenomena: conceptual metaphors, prototype
categorization, certain types of symbolism and of iconicity, pragmatic inferencing
(indirect speech acts, implicature), blending and conceptual integration, phonology,
grammar (both morphology and syntax), and language change. Barcelona (2002) and
Radden (2005) are two brief reviews. The growing interest in metonymy is reflected in
several recent events such as the international conference Perspectives on Metonymy
(Proceedings in Kosecki 2007).
However, although there exists a basic agreement in cognitive linguistic on the
conceptual nature of metonymy, there remain a number of important disagreements on
other aspects of this notion. Among them, the following should be mentioned:
- Is metonymy a “mapping”, and if so, what type of mapping? Perhaps a “pragmatic
function mapping” (Fauconnier)? Not all of the above-mentioned linguists seem to
regard it as a mapping.
- Is the distinction of metaphor from metonymy in terms of the ‘same domain vs.
different domain’ criterion really adequate, and if so, how can it be improved?
- Which is the connection between reference-points (Langacker) and metonymic
sources? In particular, which systematic criteria can be used to distinguish nonmetonymic from metonymic reference points?
- Should all instances of active-zone / profile discrepancy (Langacker) be regarded as
metonymic?
- Is metonymy a prototype category itself, and if so, how could the continuum of
metonymicity be described? (Barcelona 2003, Peirsman and Geeraerts 2006)
- Should phenomena of “modulation” (Cruse and others) or facets (Paradis) be treated
as peripheral instances of metonymy?
- Is the traditional basic distinction between WHOLE FOR PART, PART FOR WHOLE and
PART FOR PART metonymies accurate, as maintained among others by Kövecses and
Radden (1998) or should the third type be eliminated?
Structure of the 90 minute workshop:
After a brief introduction by the coordinator, the participants will debate
publicly for 70-80 minutes on as many as possible of the above-mentioned topics. In
order to encourage discussion, the coordinator will present a number of examples
illustrating each issue.
If possible, the coordinator will present after the debate in about 10 minutes his
own brief summary of the various positions on each topic.
References:
Barcelona, Antonio. 2002. “On the ubiquity and multiple-level operation of
metonymy.” In Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara & Turewicz, Kamila (eds.),
Cognitive Linguistics Today. (Lódz Studies in Language.). Frankfurt/Main: Peter
Lang, 207-224.
Barcelona, Antonio. 2003. “Metonymy in cognitive linguistics. An analysis and a few
modest proposals.” In Cuyckens, Hubert, Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Thomas Berg
(eds.), Motivation in Language: Studies in Honor of Günter Radden. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins, 223-255.
Kosecki, Krzysztof, ed. 2007. Perspectives on Metonymy: Proceedings of the
International Conference 'Perspectives on Metonymy', held in Lodz, Poland, May 67, 2005. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
Kövecses, Zoltán and Radden, Günter. 1998. “Metonymy: Developing a Cognitive
Linguistic View”. Cognitive Linguistics 9:1, 1998 (37–77).
Peirsman. Yves, and Dirk Geeraerts. 2006. “Metonymy as a prototypical category”.
Cognitive Linguistics, 17-3, 269-316.
Radden, Günter. 2005. “The ubiquity of metonymy”. In Otal Campo, José Luis,
Navarro i Ferrando, Ignasi, and Bellés Fortuño, Begoña, eds., Cognitive and
Discourse Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy”. Castelló (Spain): Universitat
Jaume I,. 11-28.
Multimodal Metaphors of Time and Movement
Coordinator: Charles Forceville, University of Amsterdam, (The Netherlands)
Other participants: Lisa El Refaie, Cardiff University, (United Kingdom), Ning Yu,
University of Oklahoma (USA), Marloes Jeulink, University of Amsterdam (The
Netherlands)
Date and time : 30th May 12.30
Room: 8
Introduction to the workshop
The Conceptual Metaphor Theory fathered by Lakoff and Johnson holds that all
cognition is ultimately “embodied,” which means that humans understand abstract
concepts in terms of what is concrete. What counts as concrete, in turn, is what can be
apperceived thanks to the human body’s sensory and locomotive abilities. Over the past
decade, moreover, the role of culture in the study of metaphor has come to be
understood as hardly less important than that of embodiment. All this has been amply
argued in CMT, but primarily with reference to exclusively verbal manifestations of the
conceptual metaphors they are supposed to reflect. This is problematic for two reasons.
In the first place there is a danger of circularity. A sceptic might argue that Lakoff and
Johnson’s approach does not prove that we think metaphorically but that we think
verbally, that is, that thinking and using language are the same thing. So in order to
further investigate (and possibly substantiate) the claim that we think metaphorically, it
is imperative to study non-verbal and multimodal manifestations of what are deemed to
be conceptual metaphors. In the second place, even if examining non-verbal and
multimodal discourses indeed lends support to the claim that we think metaphorically,
non-verbal modes of conceptual metaphors may emphasize different aspects of such
conceptual metaphors than language does. Moreover, the various modes will vary
among themselves in what, and how, they are capable of conveying metaphorically;
after all, as Marshall McLuhan pointed out long ago, the medium is the message. An
additional reason to study non-verbal and multimodal discourses in light of CMT is that
CMT provides tools for theorizing them – and such tools are badly needed in the infant
discipline of multimodality.
Until recently, the only non-verbal modes (or modalities) that received sustained
attention within CMT were gestures and pictures. Increasingly, however, it becomes
clear that modes seldom occur on their own in a given discourse, so that it is important
to study how they interact. For present purposes, the following modes will be
distinguished: written language, spoken language, visuals (probably in need of further
subdivision), gestures, sound, music, touch, smell, and taste. The field of multimodal
metaphor – a child of metaphor and multimodal theory – is only beginning to be
discovered. The present workshop addresses some areas of research in this exciting new
field.
There are three 30’ slots in the workshop. Each of the presenters (Lisa El Refaie,
Ning Yu, Charles Forceville & Marloes Jeulink [the latter only virtually present]) will
briefly introduce a minimum of theory, and then interactively discuss one or two case
studies with the participants in the workshop. The order will be: (1) El Refaie; (2) Yu;
(3) Forceville (& Jeulink). Please see the abstracts below for details of the contents and
structure of each presentation.
Slot 1 Metaphors of temporality in graphic novels (Lisa El Refaie, Centre for
Language and Communication, Cardiff University, UK)
10 minutes: Presentation. I start by giving a brief introduction to the graphic novel,
stressing the central importance of temporal structure in this narrative genre (Gravett,
2005; Ricoeur, 1985; Sabin, 1993). Since graphic novels use a combination of words
and images to tell a story, duration and chronology are also likely to be expressed in
both verbal and visual forms. I introduce a small number of graphic novels and explain
the narrative context of the excerpts to be used in the case study.
5 minutes: Case study and written responses. Participants will be asked to consider
some excerpts from graphic novels and complete a brief questionnaire on their
perceptions of time and chronology in these examples.
15 minutes: Discussion of the study. The discussion will focus on two related issues:
(a) different conceptualizations of time and (b) different ways in which graphic
novelists can represent these.
(a) Conceptual metaphor theory (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980: 41-44; Lakoff,
1993: 217) suggests that we commonly think about time in terms of space, with the
future in front of us, the present right by us, and the past behind. However, this
particular orientational metaphor may well be culturally specific (Hall, 1973; Kövecses,
2005). Several radically different notions of time have been described, including
cyclical time, Foucault’s notion of disciplinary time and Bergson’s experienced
subjective time (la durée) (Parna, 2001). Depending on what a graphic novelist is trying
to convey, he or she may draw on different conceptualizations of time. Individual
readers are also likely to bring their own cultural background and experience to the
process of interpreting multimodal metaphors of temporality. Participants’ responses to
the case study will be used to explore the extent to which individual differences in
interpretation can be related to people’s socio-cultural background.
(b) According to the literature (McCloud, 1996, 2006; Eisner, 1985), graphic
novelists have several ways of representing temporality at their disposal. The very act of
reading words and images on a page in a particular order takes time, and the number,
size, directionality and shape of frames - and the “gutter” between them – are able to
introduce a sense of sequence and pace. The content of each individual frame can also
indicate time passing, for instance through pictorially suggested space and motion and
through written words that represent either spoken language or sound, all of which have
a “natural,” experiential duration. We will consider which verbal and visual resources
are used to represent time in the case study examples and whether the two modes seem
to fulfill different roles in the construction of metaphors of temporality.
References
Eisner, W. (1985). Comics and Sequential Art: Principles and Practice of the World’s
Most Popular Art Form. Paramus NJ: Poorhouse.
Gravett, P. (2005). Graphic Novels: Stories to Change Your Life. London: Aurum
Press.
Hall, E.T. (1973). The Silent Language (2nd ed.). New York: Anchor Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In: A. Ortony, Metaphor and
Thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 202-225). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago/London:
University of Chicago Press.
McCloud, S. (1993). Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art. New York: Harper
Perennial.
McCloud, S. (2006). Making Comics: Storytelling Secrets of Comics, Manga and
Graphic Novels. New York: Harper.
Parna, K. (2001). Narrative, time and the fixed image. In: M. Ribière and J. Baetens
(eds.), Time, Narrative & the Fixed Image (pp. 29-34). Amsterdam; Atlanta GA:
Rodopi.
Ricoeur, P. (1985). Time and Narrative, Volume 2. Chicago/London: University of
Chicago Press.
Sabin, R. (1993). Adult Comics: An Introduction. London/New York: Routledge.
Slot 2 Multimodal Manifestations of the VIRTUE
University of Oklahoma, USA)
AS
WATER Metaphor (Ning Yu,
15 minutes: Presentation. During the past two decades, cognitive linguistic studies
have shown that human minds are embodied in the cultural world, and thinking and
reasoning are largely metaphorical and imaginative, shaped by bodily and cultural
experiences (e.g., Gibbs, 1994, 2006; Johnson, 1987; Kövecses, 2002, 2005; Lakoff,
1987; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 1999). According to the conceptual metaphor theory of
cognitive linguistics, metaphor is not merely a figure of speech, but also a figure of
thought, giving rise to understanding one conceptual domain in terms of another
conceptual domain. The rise of the cognitive linguistic theory of conceptual metaphor
has seen an increasing interest in and necessity for the study of nonverbal and
multimodal metaphors (e.g., Forceville, 1996, 2002, 2005, 2006; Yu, forthcoming). If
metaphor fundamentally characterizes thinking, and is only secondarily manifested in
verbal form, it should be able to produce nonverbal manifestations as well as purely
verbal ones (Forceville, 2006).
I start by giving a very brief introduction to the educational TV commercial found in
China Central Television (CCTV). I will then play an educational TV commercial
called “Chinese Virtues”. With the moving images shown together with the sound
effects, I will then discuss how the VIRTUE IS WATER conceptual metaphor is manifested
multimodally by looking at some stills taken from the commercial. Thus, the whole
commercial unfolds on the moving images of water, accompanied by special musical
effects: the snow-capped mountain, drops of water dripping from the tips of icicles,
streams of water running down the mountain, terraced and flat rice fields submerged in
water, dashing water of a river rushing down a waterfall, two branches of rivers merging
into one main river course, and sea waves surging and rolling. These moving images,
which show a long process of natural change from “drips and drops” to “seas and
oceans,” interact with and reinforce the verbal messages that speak of Chinese virtues in
terms of a river with “a remote source” and “a long course” that “flows forever” into
eternity.
15 minutes: Questions and answers, and further discussion. This part of the session
will be open to questions from the audience. In answering the questions, I will further
discuss the significance of multimodal manifestation of metaphors within their cultural
contexts.
References
Forceville, C. (1996). Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. London/ New York:
Routledge.
Forceville, C. (2002). The identification of target and source in pictorial metaphors.
Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1–14.
Forceville, C. (2005). Visual representations of the idealized cognitive model of anger
in the Asterix album La Zizanie. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 69–88.
Forceville, C. (2006). Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework:
Agendas for research. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, & F. Ruiz de
Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Current applications and Future
Perspectives (pp. 379–402). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and
Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination,
and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal
About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphor We Live By. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its
Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
Yu, N. (forthcoming). Multimodal manifestation of metaphors and metonymies in a
Chinese TV commercial. In: C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (eds.), Multimodal
Metaphor (submitted).
Slot 3 The Source-Path-Goal schema in animation film (Charles Forceville &
Marloes Jeulink, Media Studies, University of Amsterdam, NL.)
10 minutes: presentation. The source-path-goal schema is one of the most
fundamental schemas governing human conceptualizing (Johnson, 1993; Turner, 1996),
giving rise among others to the metaphor LIFE IS A JOURNEY. Literally structuring the
concept of the JOURNEY (involving a starting point, trajectory, and destination), by
extension it shapes our understanding of what constitutes a PURPOSEFUL LIFE (initial
problems or ambition, actions, solution or achievement) as well as STORY (beginning,
middle, end). Hitherto, discussions of this schema have almost exclusively focused on
its verbal manifestations (but cf. Forceville, 2006a). We will in this part consider
fragments of Michael Dudok de Wit’s Oscar-winning short animation film Father and
Daughter (UK/NL 2000) in light of the literal movement, the figurative quest, and the
filmic story that portrays the movement-cum-quest. The aim is threefold: (i) to
demonstrate the necessity of studying the source-path-goal schema in multimodal,
rather than just in purely verbal manifestations in order to further test CMT’s claims
about its centrality in human conceptualizing; (ii) to show how the source-path-goal
schema both enriches and constrains possible interpretations of the animation films
under consideration; and (iii) to conclude what the medium (here: animation film) in
which the source-path-goal schema appears as well as its genre (here: art film) affects
its possible uses (see Forceville, 2004—, 2005, 2006b; Caballero, 2006; Forceville &
Urios-Aparisi, submitted).
10 minutes: an application. Participants will now look at a complete (5’) animation
film in light of the S-P-G schema, and be requested to write down their interpretations.
10 minutes: discussion. We will have a general discussion of participants’ responses,
views, and interpretations of the film.
Keywords: Multimodal metaphor, animation, Source-Path-Goal schema,
JOURNEY.
LIFE IS A
References
Caballero, R. (2006). Re-Viewing Space: Figurative Language in Architects’
Assessment of Built Space. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Forceville, C. (2004—). Course on Pictorial and Multimodal Metaphor.
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/cyber/cyber.html (4/8 lectures completed).
Forceville, C. (2005). Cognitive linguistics and multimodal metaphor”. In: K. SachsHombach (ed.), Bildwissenschaft: Zwischen Reflektion und Anwendung (pp.
264-284) Cologne: Von Halem.
Forceville, C. (2006a). Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist
framework: Agendas for research. In: G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, &
F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications
and Future Perspectives (pp. 379–402). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Forceville, C. (2006b). The Source-Path-Goal schema in the autobiographical journey
documentary: McElwee, Van der Keuken, Cole. New Review of Film and
Television Studies, 4: 241-61.
Forceville, C., and E. Urios-Aparisi (submitted). Multimodal Metaphor.
Johnson, M. (1993). Moral Imagination: Implications of Cognitive Science for Ethics.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Turner, M. (1996). The Literary Mind. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Conceptual metaphor and metonymy as motivating principles in gestural
communication
Coordinators: Irene Mittelberg, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (The Netherlands),
Cornelia Müller, European University Viadrina, Frankfurt/Oder (Germany)
Other participant: Sedinha Teßendorf, European University Viadrina, Frankfurt/Oder
Day and time: 30th May 12.30
Room: 11
Metaphor and metonymy have been shown to motivate expressions in verbal as well as
non-verbal modalities. While multimodal metaphor has received considerable attention
from various perspectives (Forceville 2005, Forceville & Urios-Aparisi fc.; Cienki
1998, 2005; Cienki & Müller fc., Müller fc.; Müller 1998, 2003, fc.; Sweetser 1998),
research on how metaphor and metonymy interact in process of meaning-making has
predominantly focused on spoken and written language (e.g., Barcelona 2000; Dirven &
Pőrings 2002; Gibbs 1994; Goosens et al. 1995; Lakoff 1987; Panther & Thornburg
2004; Panther & Radden 1999; Radden 2000; Turner & Fauconnier 2002).
This theme session takes the notion of embodiment, which is central to
cognitivist approaches to language and cognition, literally and investigates
instantiations of figurative thought in messages consisting of spoken discourse and its
accompanying spontaneous manual gestures. Exploring the interaction between
conceptual metaphor and metonymy in multimodal discourse in several European
languages, the session is aimed at identifying ways in which co-speech gesture has the
potential to shed light on claims primarily based on linguistic inquiry. The underlying
assumption is that whereas conceptual metaphor is central to accessing and structuring
abstract domains (Bouvet 2001; Calbris 2003; Cienki 1998, 2005; McNeill 1992, 2005;
Müller 1998, fc.; Nuñez & Sweetser 2006; Sweetser 1998, 2007; Taub 2001; P. Wilcox
2004; S. Wilcox 2004), metonymy plays an important role regarding the formation of
gestural signs (Bouvet 2001, Gibbs 1994; Müller 1998, fc.), different techniques and
modes of representation (Müller 1998, fc.), as well as regarding crossmodal modes of
indirect reference and pragmatic inferencing (Mittelberg 2006). It has also been
suggested that metonymy, in addition to metaphor, plays a central role in the motivation
of pragmatic functions in co-verbal gestures (Teßendorf, fc.). Metonymy thus appears as
a central conceptual process motivating semantic as well as pragmatic meaning. It is
thus not surprising that sign linguists have underlined that through the interaction with
iconicity and metaphor, metonymy also crucially participates in meaning construction in
signed languages (P. Wilcox 2004; Wilcox & Morford 2007).
The objective of this theme session is at least two-fold: first, to investigate in
detail how exactly metaphor and metonymy interact in bimodal instances of meaningmaking, thus identifying the different semantic and pragmatic functions metaphor and
metonymy appear to assume therein. Second, taking a comparative perspective, the
intent is to highlight possible idiosyncrasies as well as commonalities across the
languages under investigation.
*********************************
The workshop will begin with a paper by Cornelia Müller, which introduces the
fundamental role of metonymy in the creation of gestural signs based on data from
German and Spanish speakers. More specifically the paper spells out the techniques
humans employ when turning a manual movement into gesture. These techniques
resemble the ones artists use when transforming a perceived or conceived object into a
sketch, a painting or a sculpture and they are termed gestural modes of representation
(GMR). Four modes of representation are distinguished: the hands may be used to
model a three dimensional object, they may outline or draw its oval or rectangular
shape, they may embody the object and hence turn into sculptures themselves or they
may reenact actions such as opening a window or turning a car key. Drawing upon work
in Gestalt-Psychology of Art (Gombrich 1978, Arnheim 1972) it will be suggested that
gestural modes of representation imply conceptualizations of perceived (and conceived)
objects and events in the world and their fundamental principle is conceptual
metonymy. Metonymy is thus a fundamental principle of gesture creation underlying
gestures referring to concrete as well as to abstract entities and events.
In the second paper Sedinha Teßendorf will focus more specifically on the interplay
between conceptual metaphor and metonymy. A qualitative study regarding the
motivation of functional variations of a recurrent pragmatic gesture prominent in
Spanish everyday conversation will be presented (Teßendorf fc.). It will be proposed
that the ‘brushing aside gesture’ is based on an everyday action or “manipulation”
(Streeck 1994), which consists of brushing small, annoying objects aside. The gesture is
linked to this action through iconicity: a quick flick of the hand away from one’s body
is carried out, using the most prominent formal feature of the basic action. Other more
or less implicit characteristics of the action, such as the objects which are brushed aside,
the attitude of the actor/speaker towards these objects and the goal of the action
(finishing an unpleasant state of being) are transposed metonymically into the realm of
gestural communication. The transformation of the action into a gesture, now acting
upon speech, has been regarded as an expression of the underlying conceptual metaphor
IDEAS (OR MEANINGS) ARE OBJECTS (Lakoff & Johnson 2003; McNeill 1992,
2005). Even though this conceptual metaphor appears to be essential for the brushing
aside gesture, it does not account for all functional variations of this pragmatic gesture
and it is here where metonymy comes into play (cf. Panther & Thornburg 2003).
The workshop will close with a paper by Irene Mittelberg on the interaction of
conceptual metaphor and metonymy in gestural representations of grammar. Based on
English academic discourse, the paper suggests that while gestures representing abstract
concepts are essentially metaphorical, metonymic principles seem to play a role in
establishing contiguity relations holding between gesture and referent, between hands
and the imaginary objects they seem to manipulate, as well as between the two hands in
bimanually achieved gestures. In this view, manual articulators may serve as
perceivable reference points (Langacker 1993, Panther & Thornburg 2004), triggering
cognitive access to the imaginary objects or virtual traces the viewer needs to infer from
the hand configuration or movement. For instance, a flat palm-up open hand extended
toward the addressee, coinciding with the mention of the word “noun,” does not
iconically signify its referent. Whereas the abstract category “noun” is metaphorically
construed as an object sitting on the palm of the hand, the referent is metonymically
inferred (LOCATION FOR OBJECT, ACTION FOR OBJECT INVOLVED IN ACTION,
PRESENTATION FOR PRESENTED). To account for these intertwined cognitive-semiotic
processes, a two-step interpretative model, moving from metonymy (internal and
external, according to Jakobson & Pomorska 1983) to metaphor, will be introduced
(Mittelberg & Waugh fc.).
References:
Arnheim, R. (1972). Visual Thinking. Berkeley University Press.
Bouvet, D. (2001). La dimension corporelle de la parole. Les marques posturo-mimogestuelles de la parole, leurs aspects métonymiques et métaphoriques, et leur rôle
au cours d’un récit. Paris: Peeters.
Calbris, G. (2003). From cutting an object to a clear cut analysis: Gesture as the
representation of a preconceptual schema linking concrete actions to abstract
notions. Gesture 3 (1), 19-46.
Cienki, A. (1998). “Metaphoric gestures and some of their relations to verbal
metaphoric expressions. In Discourse and Cognition: Bridging the Gap, J.-P.
Koenig (ed.). Stanford: CSLI Publications, 189-204.
Cienki, A. (2005). Image schemas and gesture. In: From Perception to Meaning: Image
Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, B. Hampe (ed.). Berliln/New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Cienki, A. & Müller, C. (Eds.) (fc.). Metaphor and Gesture. Amsterdam/New York:
John Benjamins.
Forceville, C. (2006). Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework:
Agendas for research. In Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future
Perspectives. Gitte Kristiansen, Michel Achard, René Dirven, and Francisco Ruiz
de Mendoza Ibáñez (eds.), 379–402. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gibbs, R.W., Jr. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and
Understanding. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gombrich, E. (1978). Kunst und Illusion. Stuttgart: Beltz.
Goossens, L., P. Pauwels, B. Rudzka-Ostyn, A.-S. Simon-Vandenbergen, and J.
Vanparys (eds.) (1995). By Word of Mouth: Metaphor, Metonymy and Linguistic
Action in a Cognitive Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Jakobson, R. (1956/1990). „Two Aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasic
Disturbances.“ In Roman Jakobson, On Language. L.R. Waugh and M. MonvilleBurston (Eds.). Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press, 115-133.
Jakobson, R. and Pomorska, K. (1983). Dialogues. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Johnson, M. (1987) The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination,
and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, M. (2005) The philosophical significance of image schemas. In B. Hampe
(ed.) in cooperation with J. Grady, From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas
in Cognitive Linguistics 15--33. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson (2003): Metaphors we live by. With a new afterword.
Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1999) Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its
Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind: What Gestures reveal about thought. Chicago:
Chicago University Press.
McNeill, D. (2005). Gesture and Thought. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Mittelberg, I. (2006) Metaphor and Metonymy in Language and Gesture: Discourse
Evidence for Multimodal Models of Grammar. Unpubl. Doctoral Dissertation,
Cornell University.
Mittelberg, I. (fc.). Peircean semiotics meets conceptual metaphor: Analyses of gestural
represenations of grammar. In: Metaphor and Gesture. C. Müller & A. Cienki
(Eds.). Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins.
Mittelberg, I. & Waugh, L.R. (fc.). Multimodal figures of thought: A cognitive-semiotic
approach to metaphor and metonymy in co-speech gesture. In: Forceville, C. & E.
Urios-Aparisi (eds.), Multimodal Metaphor. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Müller, C. (1998). Redebegleitende Gesten. Kulturgeschichte - Theorie Sprachvergleich. Berlin: Berlin Verlag A. Spitz.
Müller, C. (2007) A dynamic view on gesture, language and thought. In: S.D. Duncan,
J. Cassell & E.T. Levy (eds.) Gesture and the dynamic dimension of language.
Essays in honor of David McNeill. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 109116.
Müller, C. (fc.). Metaphors. Dead and alive, sleeping and waking. A cognitive approach
to metaphors in language use. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Müller, C. (fc.). Modes of representation as creative devices in gestures and signed
languages. To appear in Gesture.
Müller, C. (fc.). How hand movements turn into gesture: gestural modes of
representation as metonymic resources of gesture creation. In: Mittelberg, I. & C.
Müller (eds.) Metonymy in Gesture and Signed Languages, Special Issue.
CogniTextes.
Núñez, R.E. & E.E. Sweetser (2006). “Aymara, Where the Future is Behind You:
Convergent Evidence from Language and Gesture in the Cross-Linguistic
Comparison of Spatial Construals of Time.” Cognitive Science, 30: 1-49.
Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L.L. (Eds.) (2003): Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing.
Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L.L. (2004). „The role of conceptual metonymy in
meaning construction.“ Metaphorik.de, 06/2004, 91-113.
Radden, G. (2000). “How metonymic are metaphors?” In Metaphor and Metonymy at
the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. A. Barcelona (Ed.), Berlin/New York:
Mouton de Gruyter, 93-98.
Sweetser, E. (1998). „Regular metaphoricity in gesture: bodily-based models of speech
interaction.“ Actes du 16e Congrès International des Linguistes (CD-ROM),
Elsevier.
Sweetser, E. (2007). Looking at space to study mental spaces: Co-speech gesture as a
crucial data source in cognitive linguistics.” In Methods in Cognitive Linguistics,
M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson, and M. Spivey (eds.), 201-224.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Streeck, Jürgen (1994): „Speech-handling“: The metaphorical representation of speech
in gesture. A cross-cultural study. MS
Taub, S. (2001). Language from the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor in American Sign
Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Teßendorf, S. (fc.). Research in recurrent coverbal gestures: the case of the Spanish
'brushing aide gesture'. In: Bressem, J. & S. Ladewig (eds.) Recurrence in coverbal
gestures – investigating form and function.
Teßendorf, S. (fc.). From everyday action to gestural performance: metonymic
motivations of a pragmatic gesture. In: Mittelberg, I. & C. Müller (eds.) Metonymy
in Gesture and Signed Languages, Special Issue. CogniTextes.
Turner, M. and G. Fauconnier (2002). Metaphor, metonymy, and binding. In Metaphor
and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, René Dirven and Ralf Pörings (eds.)
469–487. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wilcox, P.P. (2004). “A cognitive key: Metonymic and metaphorical mappings in
ASL.” Cognitive Linguistics 15 (2): 197-222.
Wilcox, S. and J. Morford (2007). Empirical methods in signed language research. In
Methods in Cognitive Linguistics, M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson,
and M. J. Spivey (eds.), 171–200. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Uncovering metaphor: From linguistic expression to conceptual structure in five
steps
Coordinator: Gerard Steen, Vrije Universiteit (The Netherlands)
Other participants: Lettie Dorst, Anna Kaal, Tina Krennmayr and Tryntje Pasma,
Vrije Universiteit (The Netherlands)
Day and time: 30th May 12.30
Room: 9
The aim of this workshop is to demonstrate how various types of linguistic expressions
of metaphor in discourse can be uniformly analyzed with respect to their underlying
conceptual structure. Metaphors, similes, analogies, and other forms of metaphorical
meaning all display their own linguistic properties, as may be illustrated by the
following expressions: You pig; Sam is like a pig; I made a bit of a pig of myself at
dinner (=ate too much); I found Sam in front of the TV, pigging out on pizza and fries.
Yet all of these expressions can be seen as diverging linguistic manifestations of the
same type of structure in thought, typically described as a cross-domain mapping in
cognitive linguistics. The question hence arises how this linguistic diversity can be
handled by a single analytical technique which is aimed at uncovering the details of any
assumed cross-domain mapping.
The format of technical representation chosen is the five-step method proposed
in Steen (1999, 2007; cf. Semino, Heywood, and Short, 2004). The materials to be
analyzed are taken from the VU University projects ‘Metaphor in discourse’ and
‘Conversationalization in public discourse’, in which a 200,000 word English-language
corpus and a 100,000 word Dutch-language corpus have been annotated for metaphor
(e.g. Pragglejaz Group, 2007; Steen, Biernacka, et al., in press). The identification of all
metaphor-related words in these corpora in this way is in fact the first step of the fivestep method; it includes all diverging linguistic forms of metaphor mentioned above and
more. The content of the workshop will hence focus on steps 2 through 5 in order to
demonstrate how these linguistic findings can be systematically transformed into
entirely comparable conceptual structures at each of these stages of analysis. These
conceptual structures will be shown to reveal the core of the cross-domain mappings
that are assumed to lie at the basis of all metaphorical meaning.
The structure of the workshop will have three parts. In the first part, a brief
overview of the five-step method will be offered in order to provide a frame of
reference for discussion. In the second part, the workshop will be divided into small
working groups, each group led by one of the presenters, who will offer a number of
cases for discussion within the small group. In the third part, a plenary discussion will
address comments and questions that have arisen from the practical work, and finally
consider a number of general issues pertaining to the overall application of the five-step
method, for instance with respect to different types of discourse (e.g. spoken versus
written) and different languages (e.g. English, Dutch, and German).
The organization of the workshop, and the roles of the contributors, looks as
follows:
1. Introduction of five-step method (Gerard Steen, 10 min)
2. Application of five-step method to selected cases in small working groups (all
contributors, 50 min)
3. Conclusion
a. Discussion of comments and questions (all contributors, 10 min)
b. Further issues: spoken vs written (Anna Kaal, Tryntje Pasma, 10 min);
English vs Dutch vs German (Lettie Dorst, Tina Krennmayr, 10 min)
References
Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in
discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1-39.
Semino, E., Heywood, J., & Short, M. H. (2004). Methodological problems in the
analysis of metaphors in a corpus of conversations about cancer. Journal of
Pragmatics, 36(7), 1271-1294.
Steen, G. J. (1999). From linguistic to conceptual metaphor in five steps. In R. W.
Gibbs, jr. & G. J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 57-77).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Steen, G. J. (2007). Finding metaphor in grammar and usage: A methodological
analysis of theory and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Steen, G. J., Biernacka, E., Dorst, A.G.., Kaal, A.A., López-Rodríguez, I., & Pasma, T.
(In press). Pragglejaz in practice: Finding metaphorically used words in natural
discourse. In G. Low, L. Cameron, A. Deignan & Z. Todd (Eds.), Metaphor in
the real world.