Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:57:40.836Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Hungarian root es- in language and cognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 December 2015

ZOLTÁN KÖVECSES
ZOLTÁN KÖVECSES*
Affiliation:
ELTE, Budapest
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

abstract

My goal in the paper is to examine the significance of a root morpheme in language and cognition in three interconnected areas; in the creation of words; in meaning making; and in conceptual structure. I use the Hungarian root es-, meaning ‘fall’, for demonstration – a root that occurs in over 100 Hungarian words. First, I examine the issue of the conceptual–semantic relationship between the various word meanings in which this root can be found. Second, I explore the potential cognitive status of the root in Hungarian, and possibly in other languages (such as English). Third, I compare the meanings in which es- occurs in Hungarian to the nearest counterparts of these words in English. Fourth, I investigate the potential role of the root es- in organizing conceptual structure.

Keywords

rootsconceptual structureimage schemasmetaphormetonymy
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 121 - 155
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2015 

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

Bárczi, G., & Országh, L. (1962). A magyar nyelv értelmező szótára [The explanatory dictionary of the Hungarian language] . Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. [Arcanum, 2004, DVD].Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–609.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benkő, L. (1984). A magyar nyelv történeti-etimológiai szótára [The historical-etymological dictionary of the Hungarian language] , vol. one, 2nd ed. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Czuczor, G., & Fogarasi, J. (1862). A magyar nyelv szótára [The dictionary of the Hungarian language] . Budapest: Pallas. [Arcanum, 2004, DVD].Google Scholar
Evans, V. (2013). Language and time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the morning calm (ed. by The Linguistic Society of Korea) (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Free Online Dictionary. <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/>..>Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (1997). Diachronic prototype semantics: a contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind. New York / Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. New York / Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Beitel, D., Harrington, M., & Sanders, P. (1995). Taking a stand on the meanings of stand: bodily experience as motivation for polysemy. Journal of Semantics, 11, 231–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Koch, P. (1999). Frame and contiguity: on the cognitive bases of metonymy and certain types of word formation. In Panther, K.-U. & Raddden, G. (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 139–167). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Koch, P. (2001). Metonymy: unity in diversity. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 2, 201–244.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2006). Language, mind, and culture: a practical introduction. New York / Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: a practical introduction, 2nd ed. New York / Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(7), 37–77.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortony, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). New York / Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: theoretical prerequisites, vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Merriam-Webster Learner’s Dictionary online. <http://www.learnersdictionary.com/>..>Google Scholar
Online Etymology Dictionary. <http://www.etymonline.com>..>Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In Panther, K.-U. & Raddden, G. (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. B. (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Stekauer, P., Valera, S., & Körtvélyessy, L. (Eds.) (2012). Word-formation in the world’s languages: a typological survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. New York / Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics (two volumes). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tóth-Czifra, E. (in progress). Figurativitás és produktivitás az affixációs morfológiában: a melléknévi –Ó képző korpuszalapú, kognitív nyelvészeti vizsgálata [Figurativity and productivity in the morphology of affixes: a corpus-based, cognitive linguistic analysis of the suffix –Ó] . Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest.Google Scholar
Tótfalusi, I. (2004). Magyar etimológiai szótár [A Hungarian Etymological Dictionary] [Arcanum, 2004, DVD].Google Scholar
Traugott, C. E., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar