Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T05:14:04.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From primary metaphors to the complex semantic pole of grammatical constructions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2014

ENRIQUE HUELVA UNTERNBÄUMEN
ENRIQUE HUELVA UNTERNBÄUMEN*
Affiliation:
University of Brasilia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The main aim of the present work is to demonstrate that the semantic pole of ditransitive constructions manifests itself as a multidomain matrix, consisting basically of a set of conceptual metaphors integrated through the mechanism of blending. The metaphors that participate in these multidomain matrices are, in principle, metaphors that already exist in our conceptual structure. As we shall demonstrate in the course of the analysis, these often involve primary metaphors, conceived of as metaphors that have a direct, independent, experiential base. In other cases, the starting point for the construction of such multidomain matrices is complex metaphors already existing in our conceptual structure, understood as an autonomous conceptual complex of a metaphorical nature, created through the integration of various primary metaphors. Our concrete object of analysis consists of the semantic pole of different types of ditransitive constructions. The data analyzed include examples from Romance (Catalan, French, Brazilian Portuguese, and Spanish) and Germanic (English and German) languages.

Keywords

ditransitive constructionsblendingprimary metaphorscomplex metaphorsconceptual complexitycognitive complexity
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 68 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

references

Brown, Roger (1965). Social psychology. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy (2009). The semantic range of the Dutch double object construction: a collostructional perspective. Constructions and Frames, 1(2), 190−220.Google Scholar
Delbecque, Nicole, & Lamiroy, Béatrice (1996). Towards a typology of the Spanish dative. In Van Belle, W. & Van Langendonck, W. (Eds.), The dative, vol. 1 (pp. 71−117). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles, & Turner, Mark (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133−187.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles, & Turner, Mark (2002). The way we think: conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk (1998). The semantic structure of the indirect object in Dutch. In Van Langendonck, W. & Van Belle, W. (Eds.), The dative II: theoretical and contrastive studies (pp. 185−210). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. E. (1992). The inherent semantics of argument structure: the case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 37−74.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. E. (1995). Constructions: a Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. E. (2006). Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grady, Joseph E. (1997). Foundations of meaning: primary metaphors and primary scenes. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Berkeley.Google Scholar
Grady, Joseph E. (2005). Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10: Special Issue: Conceptual Blending Theory), 1595−1614.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd (1997). Possession: sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, & Kuteva, Tania (2002). World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, & Kuteva, Tania (2007). The genesis of grammar: a reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hollmann, Willem (2007). From language-specific constraints to implicational universals: a cognitive-typological view of the dative alternation. Functions of Language, 14(1), 57−78.Google Scholar
Huelva Unternbäumen, Enrique (2010a). The complex domain matrix of ditransitive constructions. Constructions 1 11 May 2010, online: <http://elanguage.net/journals/constructions/article/view/749>.Google Scholar
Huelva Unternbäumen, Enrique (2010b). El mapa semántico de la construcción ditransitiva con ‘para’ en el portugués brasileño. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 126(1), 115−133.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark (1987). The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, & Johnson, Mark (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: a basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej, Haspelmath, Martin, & Comrie, Bernard (Eds.) (2010). Studies in ditransitive constructions: a comparative Handbook. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, John (1996). Give: a cognitive linguistic study. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Newman, John (2005). Three-place predicates: a cognitive-linguistic perspective. Language Sciences, 27, 145−163.Google Scholar
Palancar, Enrique (1999). What do we give in Spanish when we hit? A constructionist account of hitting expressions. Cognitive Linguistics, 10(1), 57−91.Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus Uwe, & Thornburg, Linda (2003). The EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy in English grammar. In Barcelona, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: a cognitive perspective (pp. 215−231). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328−350.Google Scholar
Searle, John, & Vanderveken, Daniel (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. 1: concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar