The cross-linguistic studies on cognitive models of emotions that use ICMs as a basis such as Lakoff and Ko¨vecses 1987; Ko¨vecses 1995 take us into research on cultural models e.g., Hol
Trang 1may stand for an institution or people located at that place The ICM provides the framework for allowing one to make metonymic reference, in that it provides a limited search domain which the addressee can use to identify the metonymic ref-erent Social stereotypes are one example of how certain salient members of a cat-egory can be used to represent the entire catcat-egory (part stands for whole), with the inherent danger that inferences can be made about the entire category of people based on the characteristics associated with the one subgroup
3.5 Symbolic ICMs
The association of symbolic units, such as linguistic forms, with the conceptual elements in ICMs is the criterion for identifying an ICM as symbolic (Lakoff 1987: 289–92) In terms of linguistic form, our understanding of what constitutes a lexi-cal item, a grammatilexi-cal category, and a grammatilexi-cal construction is claimed to be structured by ICMs So the concept of ‘noun’ is a radial category based on the central (prototypical) subcategory of names for physical entities But ICMs are also relevant in terms of the connection between symbol (linguistic form) and meaning Lakoff also draws on the Figure/Ground distinction and recasts the findings of Fillmore’s work on frame semantics to say that the meaning of each lexical item is represented as an element in an ICM, or conversely, an ICM provides the back-ground against which a word is defined
3.6 ICMs: Closing Points
ICMs have been used as analytic tools in research on lexical and morphological semantics, polysemy (particularly of prepositions, verb particles, and verbal pre-fixes), and the syntax and semantics of grammatical constructions The three case studies in Lakoff (1987) give a sense of this work One is a semantic analysis of over
as a preposition and verb particle (developing on Brugman 1981); one provides a coherent account of English constructions with there, which sometimes refer to relative location and sometimes to existence (and this analysis invokes the work on frame semantics); and one explicates the ICM of ‘anger’ (drawing on work with Ko¨vecses) The cross-linguistic studies on cognitive models of emotions that use ICMs as a basis (such as Lakoff and Ko¨vecses 1987; Ko¨vecses 1995) take us into research on cultural models (e.g., Holland and Quinn 1987; Quinn 1991; D’Andrade and Strauss 1992)
Implied, but not mentioned in the explications above, is a relation between ICMs and ‘‘mental spaces’’ (Fauconnier 1985) Mental spaces have been described
as ‘‘small conceptual packets constructed as we think and talk, for purposes of local understanding and action’’ (Fauconnier and Turner 2002: 40; see also Fauconnier, this volume, chapter 14) Thus, ‘‘any fixed or ongoing state of affairs as we con-ceptualize it is represented by a mental space’’ (Lakoff 1987: 281) ICMs provide
Trang 2ready-made ways of structuring mental spaces If one encounters a situation in which several salient elements evoke a known ICM, that model can provide a framework for filling in potentially relevant details For example, hearing verbal formulas which introduce a story can invoke the ‘‘storytelling ICM,’’ which can help one construct relevant mental spaces more easily to understand the story (Lakoff 1987: 281–82)
One of the critiques of research promoting ICMs as an analytic tool has been that it does not take account of the central role of culture in cognition (e.g., Quinn 1991) While the research on cognitive models and cultural models does not present them as two names for the same thing, the relation between the two sides cannot be ignored (Gibbs 1999) In this regard, Shore (1996) provides a detailed analysis of the many types of models which go into making up what we call ‘‘a culture.’’ Shore points out that while some ICMs are really mental models, others are models con-structed in the world in terms of social institutions and/or practices (334) Also note that the focus in this chapter, as in the extant literature on the subject, has been on linguistic instantiations of ICMs But since such models are meant to be part of our general cognitive abilities, we can also find nonlinguistic versions of the various types of ICMs (e.g., various kinds of symbolic models, models employing meto-nymic reference via iconic images, etc.)
Two main contexts in which the notion of ‘‘domains’’ has been used as a theoretical construct in cognitive linguistic research include conceptual metaphor theory and Cognitive Grammar Though the term appears to have developed independently in these two lines of inquiry, an exploration into use of the term reveals that it can most profitably be understood by consideration of both contexts
Lakoff (1993) makes it clear that the mappings in conceptual metaphors are between two ‘‘domains of experience,’’ such that a target domain (of experience) is understood in terms of a source domain (of experience) What exactly constitutes a domain remained implicitly understood for some time by many who used the the-oretical framework beginning with Lakoff and Johnson (1980), since the term was not yet used in that work But even initially it was apparent that domains, as em-ployed in conceptual metaphor theory, are something broader than mental spaces,
as mentioned earlier Whereas mental spaces involve conceptualizations enlisted by the individual in a specific context for a specific purpose, domains encompass many aspects of an experience that are conceptualized as associated
A more explicit treatment of domains appears with the application of the notion in Cognitive Grammar Langacker (1987: 488) defines ‘‘domain’’ within this framework as ‘‘a coherent area of conceptualization relative to which semantic
Trang 3units may be characterized.’’ This use of ‘‘domain’’ covers a range of types of cog-nitive entities, from mental experiences, to representational spaces, concepts, or conceptual complexes (147) The notion is at the heart of the encyclopedic view of linguistic semantics in Cognitive Grammar; if knowledge is encyclopedic, rather than dictionary-like, domains provide a way of carving out the scope of concepts relevant for characterizing the meanings of linguistic units The following is a brief summary of properties of different kinds of domains (based on Langacker 1987: chapter 4)
Domains, as understood in Cognitive Grammar, may be basic or abstract
‘‘Basic domains’’ cannot be fully reduced to any other domains, and in this way they can be thought of as primitive dimensions of cognitive representation Our sensory capacities are examples of several different basic domains A domain which is not basic, ‘‘any concept or conceptual complex that functions as a domain for the def-inition of a higher-order concept’’ (Langacker 1987: 150), is called an abstract do-main For example, an understanding of what an elbow is requires knowledge about the domain of ‘arm’, but ‘arm’ is itself clearly not a basic domain, and so in this framework it qualifies as an abstract domain In a footnote, Langacker (1987: 150) says that an abstract domain is essentially equivalent to an ICM, a frame, scene, schema, or possibly a script However, given the various ways in which the terms listed have been understood, as described in the previous sections of this chapter, it might be best to understand ‘‘abstract domain’’ based on Langacker’s own descrip-tion of it
In Cognitive Grammar, basic domains are recognized as having one or more dimensions Thus, while time, pitch, and temperature are understood as one-dimensional, since each entails a single, consistent ordering, domains like kinship relations and color involve multiple dimensions (for kinship relations: intra- versus intergenerational relations; and for color: brightness, saturation, and hue) In ad-dition, a domain can be described as locational or configurational Examples of locational domains include temperature and color, since each is defined by a loca-tion on one or more scales A configuraloca-tional domain is one which can ‘‘accom-modate a number of distinct values as part of a single gestalt’’ (Langacker 1987: 153) For example, we can have a two-dimensional or a three-dimensional conceptual-ization of the domain of space, and so it is a configurational domain
Domain should also be distinguished from what is called a dominion in Cog-nitive Grammar This is something specific to discussions about ‘‘reference points,’’ which can be any entities that are used to establish mental contact with another (see Langacker 1993) In this context, the dominion is the conceptual region or set of entities to which a particular reference point affords direct access (Langacker 1991: 170) A dominion is therefore a concept localized to a specific type of context, and rather different from the broader notion of domains
Croft (1993) reflects on the understanding of domains in the analysis of con-ceptual metaphors and metonymies in light of Langacker’s work He begins with Langacker’s distinction between a profile and a base If a profile is the entity des-ignated by a semantic structure, then a base is the ground with respect to which that
Trang 4entity is profiled He recalls Langacker’s (1987: 183–84) example of an arc of a circle: not every curved line is an arc, as an arc presupposes the concept of a circle for its definition Thus, a circle serves as the base, the background, against which we understand what an arc is (and in this case an arc is the relevant profile) Given this,
‘‘we can now define a domain as a semantic structure that functions as the base for
at least one concept profile’’ (Croft 1993: 339)
Croft (1993) moves on to relate domain, as defined in this way, to the study of metaphor and metonymy First, many concepts presuppose several different do-mains So a human being is defined relative to domains such as physical objects, living things, volitional agents, and others ‘‘The combination of domains simu-lateously presupposed by a concept such as [human being] is called a domain matrix’’ (340) Metaphor, then, is a mapping between two domains that are not part
of the same matrix (348) Croft notes, ‘‘If you say She’s feeling down, there is no spatial orientation domain in the matrix of the metaphorical concept of emotion being expressed; happy is up involves two different concepts with their own do-main structures underlying them’’ (348) However, metonymy normally involves mapping within a domain matrix (see also Panther and Thornburg, this volume, chapter 10) This construal of metonymy helps make sense of previous analyses which claim that metonymy involves a relation of ‘contiguity’, and explains how metonymy is often used for purposes of reference to something which is related in a contextually salient way Thus, the notion of domain, though applied in different ways in different avenues of Cognitive Linguistics, is important in several respects
to linguistic analysis because it is such a basic cognitive construct
One criticism that might be leveled against these notions is that in any specific analysis, it is not necessarily clear how to demarcate what is or is not part of a given frame, ICM, or domain Because they are cognitive constructs, their scope is going
to be determined in any instance by contextual factors as well as the subjective nature of construal So, while they provide useful ways of thinking about the cog-nitive bases of linguistic structures and the relations of form to meaning, their inherent nature can make them tricky to use as analytic tools in a reliable, replicable fashion Whether, and if so, how, these notions can be better operationalized for applied research remains to be seen
In addition, because each of the terms ‘‘frame,’’ ‘‘ICM,’’ or ‘‘domain’’ can refer
to a kind of knowledge structure which can serve as a background for interpreting the meaning of linguistic forms, there is sometimes overlap in how they are used
by different researchers However, each term seems to find its best functional home within one or two specific theoretical frameworks In this regard, we saw above that
Trang 5frame theory paved the way for particular theories of grammar (such as Con-struction Grammar) ICMs have been a useful way of capturing the role of back-ground knowledge for certain kinds of semantic analyses, particularly as they relate
to questions of categorization (as espoused by Lakoff 1987) Domains play an es-pecially prominent role in conceptual metaphor theory and in Cognitive Grammar The different theoretical contexts in which frames, ICMs, and domains are used accentuate the nuances of the differences between them
The development of all of the basic notions outlined in this chapter helped lay the groundwork for what has come to be known as Cognitive Linguistics They reflect a common view of the study of language which Lakoff (1990: 40) charac-terizes in terms of ‘‘a commitment to make one’s account of human language accord with what is generally known about the mind and the brain, from other disciplines as well as our own.’’ The research on frames, ICMs, and domains reflects this commitment in how it has both drawn on and influenced work in various branches of cognitive science, such as psychology, anthropology, and philosophy Because of the fundamental roles these basic concepts have in cognitive linguistic theory, the original research on them will continue to remain influential in future work in the field
N O T E S
1 It is interesting to note this early connection made between the cognitive and the sociocultural—a concern which was alien to work in American linguistics at the time within the generative paradigm and was ahead of its time in relation to Cognitive Lin-guistics, which initially did not give much attention to the social aspects of language use.
2 Lakoff (1987: 68) claims to be discussing image-schematic structure as described in Langacker’s (1987) Cognitive Grammar, but Langacker does not present a theory of image schemas, and Langacker’s notion of ‘‘schemas’’ is not the same as that of Johnson’s ‘‘image schemas.’’ Lakoff is really referring to the image schemas explicated in Johnson (1987).
R E F E R E N C E S
Andor, Jo´zsef 1985 On the psychological relevance of frames Quaderni di Semantica 6: 212–21.
Bateson, Gregory 1972 Steps to an ecology of mind New York: Ballantine.
Brugman, Claudia 1981 Story of Over MA thesis, University of California at Berkeley (Published as The story of Over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon New York: Garland, 1988)
Croft, William 1993 The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies Cognitive Linguistics 4: 335–70.
Trang 6Croft, William, Chiaki Taoka, and Esther J Wood 2001 Argument linking and the commercial transaction frame in English, Russian, and Japanese Language Sciences 23: 579–602.
D’Andrade, Roy G., and Claudia Strauss, eds 1992 Human motives and cultural models Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dirven, Rene´, Roslyn Frank, and Cornelia Ilie, eds 2001 Language and ideology Vol 2, Descriptive cognitive approaches Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Emanatian, Michele 1999 Congruence by degree: On the relation between metaphor and cultural models In Raymond W Gibbs, Jr., and Gerard J Steen, eds., Metaphor
in cognitive linguistics 205–18 Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fauconnier, Gilles 1985 Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural lan-guage Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994)
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner 2002 The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities New York: Basic Books.
Fillmore, Charles J 1961 Indirect object constructions in English and the ordering of trans-formations The Hague: Mouton.
Fillmore, Charles J 1968 The case for case In Emmon Bach and Robert T Harms, eds., Universals in linguistic theory 1–88 New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Fillmore, Charles J 1971 Verbs of judging: An exercise in semantic description In Charles
J Fillmore and D Terence Langendoen, eds., Studies in linguistic semantics 273–89 New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Fillmore, Charles J 1975 An alternative to checklist theories of meaning Berkeley Lin-guistics Society 1: 123–31.
Fillmore, Charles J 1977 Topics in lexical semantics In Roger Cole, ed., Current issues in linguistic theory 76–138 Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Fillmore, Charles J 1982a Frame semantics In Linguistic Society of Korea, ed., Linguistics
in the morning calm 111–37 Seoul: Hanshin.
Fillmore, Charles J 1982b Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis In Robert J Jarvella and Wolfgang Klein, eds., Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics 31–59 New York: John Wiley.
Fillmore, Charles J 1985 Frames and the semantics of understanding Quaderni di Se-mantica 6: 222–54.
Fillmore, Charles J 1986 ‘‘U’’-semantics, second round Quaderni di Semantica 7: 49–58 Fillmore, Charles J 1987 A private history of the concept ‘frame.’ In Rene´ Dirven and Gu¨nter Radden, eds., Concepts of case 28–36 Tu¨bingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag Fries, Charles C 1952 The structure of English New York: Harcourt, Brace and World Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr 1999 Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world In Raymond W Gibbs, Jr., and Gerard J Steen, eds., Metaphor in cog-nitive linguistics 145–66 Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goffman, Erving 1974 Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience New York: Harper and Row.
Goldberg, Adele E 1995 Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Holland, Dorothy, and Naomi Quinn, eds 1987 Cultural models in language and thought Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hudson, Richard 1984 Word grammar Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Hudson, Richard 1985 Some basic assumptions about linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge Quaderni di Semantica 6: 284–87.
Trang 7Hudson, Richard 1986 Frame semantics, frame linguistics, frame ? Quaderni di Se-mantica 7: 85–101.
Johnson, Mark 1987 The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Katz, Jerrold J., and Paul M Postal 1964 An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ko¨vecses, Zolta´n 1995 Metaphor and the folk understanding of anger In James A Russell, Jose´-Miguel Ferna´ndez-Dols, Antony S R Mantead, and Jane C Wellenkamp, eds., Everyday conceptions of emotions 49–71 Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Lakoff, George 1977 Linguistic gestalts Chicago Linguistic Society 13: 236–87.
Lakoff, George 1982 Categories: An essay in cognitive linguistics In Linguistic Society of Korea, ed., Linguistics in the morning calm 139–93 Seoul: Hanshin.
Lakoff, George 1987 Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George 1990 The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics 1: 39–74.
Lakoff, George 1993 The contemporary theory of metaphor In Andrew Ortony, ed., Metaphor and thought 202–51 2nd ed Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson 1980 Metaphors we live by Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George, and Zolta´n Ko¨vecses 1987 The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English In Dorothy Holland and Naomi Quinn, eds., Cultural models in language and thought 195–221 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W 1984 Active zones Berkeley Linguistics Society 10: 172–88.
Langacker, Ronald W 1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar Vol 1, Theoretical prereq-uisites Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W 1991 Foundations of cognitive grammar Vol 2, Descriptive appli-cation Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W 1993 Reference-point constructions Cognitive Linguistics 4: 1–38.
O ˜ im, Haldur, and Madis Saluveer 1985 Frames in linguistic descriptions Quaderni di Semantica 6: 295–302.
Petruck, Miriam R L 1995 Frame semantics and the lexicon: Nouns and verbs in the body frame In Masayoshi Shibatani and Sandra Thompson, eds., Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics 279–97 Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pike, Kenneth L 1967 Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior The Hague: Mouton.
Quinn, Naomi 1991 The cultural basis of metaphor In James W Fernandez, ed., Beyond metaphor: The theory of tropes in anthropology 56–93 Stanford, CA: Stanford Uni-versity Press.
Reddy, Michael J [1979] 1993 The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language In Andrew Ortony, ed., Metaphor and thought 164–201 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rojo Lu´pez, Ana, and Javier Valenzuela 1998 Frame semantics and lexical translation: The risk frame and its translation Babel: Revue Internationale de la Traduction / International Journal of Translation 44: 128–38.
Rosch, Eleanor 1973 Natural categories Cognitive Psychology 4: 328–50.
Schank, Roger C., and Robert P Abelson 1977 Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Trang 8Scho¨n, Donald A [1979] 1993 Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting
in social policy In Andrew Ortony, ed., Metaphor and thought 137–63 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shore, Bradd 1996 Culture in mind: Cognition, culture, and the problem of meaning Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tannen, Deborah 1985 Frames and schemas in interaction Quaderni di Semantica 6: 326–35.
Tannen, Deborah, ed 1993 Framing in discourse New York: Oxford University Press Tomasello, Michael 1992 First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Oosten, Jeanne 1977 Subjects and agenthood in English Chicago Linguistic Society 13: 459–71.
Trang 9M E T A P H O R
j o s e p h e g r a d y
Metaphor has been a central topic within Cognitive Linguistics since the field was born and the term coined in the 1970s This is partly a historical consequence of George Lakoff’s dominant role and major contributions—metaphor was his focus
at the time he and a number of colleagues were defining the field of Cognitive Linguistics, and continues to be today But the importance of metaphor studies within the discipline is also a reflection of the nature of Cognitive Linguistics as it is understood by its practitioners If Cognitive Linguistics is the study of ways in which features of language reflect other aspects of human cognition, then meta-phors provide one of the clearest illustrations of this relationship Since the 1950s, Chomskyan linguists have been devising theories of syntax which largely exclude references to the meanings of linguistic structures; it is nearly impossible, though,
to conceive of metaphor without taking into account the connections between lexical semantics, usage, and our understanding and perceptions of the world Metaphors provide rich evidence about the ways in which some aspects of our lived experience are associated with others, for reasons that reflect basic aspects of per-ception, thought, and possibly neurological organization
Within Cognitive Linguistics the term metaphor is understood to refer to a pat-tern of conceptual association, rather than to an individual metaphorical usage or a linguistic convention Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 5) describe metaphor as follows:
‘‘The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing
in terms of another.’’ When Robert Frost refers to the ‘‘road less traveled,’’ he uses the words road and traveled in metaphorical ways; in conventional usage, this
Trang 10phrase is ‘‘the metaphor,’’ but for cognitive linguists the more important object of study (and, according to typical usage within the discipline, ‘‘the metaphor’’) is the underlying pattern of thought which allows the phrase to have the meaning it does Since this pattern involves associations at the conceptual level, it can be expressed
by many different lexical means—metaphorical uses of path, fork in the road, di-rection, and numerous other terms reflect the same basic set of associations, be-tween traveling and making life choices
The emphasis within Cognitive Linguistics on this conceptual dimension sug-gests a view in which metaphor is not inherently a linguistic phenomenon In fact, cognitive linguists do conceive of metaphors as patterns of thought which can be expressed on nonverbal ways, such as pictures and gestures Diagrams, for example, generally follow the convention that ‘‘higher’’ numbers and quantities should be represented higher on a physical surface (e.g., linguistic usages such as Crime has risen dramatically) In the artistic realm, M Johnson (1987: 83) considers the notion
of pictorial ‘‘balance’’ and observes that ‘‘in Kandinsky’s Accompanied Contrast , there is an exquisite balance in the work that can be made sense of only by inter-preting ‘weight,’ ‘force,’ ‘location,’ and ‘value’ metaphorically, based on a schema whose structure specifies forces or weights distributed relative to some point or ax-is.’’ Johnson is suggesting that visual images may stand metaphorically for physical masses and forces
Cognitive Linguistics is hardly the first area of scholarship to treat metaphor as a serious object of study Aristotle (1996) and St Thomas Aquinas (1947) wrote on the subject, as did Vico ([1744] 1961) (see M Johnson 1981, for a summary of philosoph-ical scholarship on metaphor) More immediate and direct predecessors included Anderson (1971), who explored ways in which understandings of spatial relationships are extended to other kinds of relations expressed in grammar, and Reddy (1993), whose discussion of metaphors for communication Lakoff and Johnson cite as a catalyst for their own interest in the subject Reddy’s paper, in fact, appeared in an important volume of papers treating metaphor from a variety of scholarly perspec-tives (Ortony 1979) Cognitive Linguistics’ unique contribution has been to treat met-aphorical language as data to be examined systematically and to be considered in connection with other basic aspects of mental activity Even more importantly, schol-ars in the field have recognized the thorough pervasiveness of metaphor even in
‘‘ordinary’’ language and thought
The starting point for a discussion of metaphor within the field of Cogni-tive Linguistics must be the approach initiated in Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) sem-inal Metaphors We Live By and elaborated by cognitive linguists since that time (Paprotte´ and Dirven 1985;1M Johnson 1987, 1993; Lakoff 1987; Lakoff and Turner 1989; Sweetser 1990; Turner 1991; Lakoff and Johnson 1999; Ko¨vecses 2002; etc.)