No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Motion for emotion: an empirical cross-linguistic study of conceptual construals
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 May 2016
Abstract
This study reports a methodological itinerary aimed at developing a statistically supported investigative procedure useful for the empirical verification of hypotheses in Cognitive Linguistics research. It targets motion–emotion construals and explores the possible conceptual link between upward-oriented movements encoded in some motion verbs and the emotional state of happiness. The results emerging from the observation of two typologically different languages (English and Italian) lend empirically verified evidence for basic hypotheses in cognition and language research regarding the conceptualization of emotions and also for findings in cross-linguistic research on emotion representation.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2016
References
references
Athanasiadou, A. (1998). The conceptualisation of the domain of fear in Modern Greek. In Athanasiadou, A. & Tabakowska, E. (Eds.), Speaking of emotions: conceptualization and expression (pp. 227–252). New York & Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Athanasiadou, A. (2014). Metaphors and metonymies for the (conceptualization and expression of the) state of no emotion in English and Greek. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada / Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Athanasadiou, A., & Tabakowska, E. (Eds.) (1998). Speaking of emotions: conceptualization and expression. New York & Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A. (2002). Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: an update. In Dirven, R. & Porings, R. (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 207–277). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A. (Ed.) (2003a [2000]). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A. (2003b [2000]). On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In Barcelona, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 283–298). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cameron, L., & Low, G. (Eds.) (1999). Researching and applying metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casasanto, D., & Dijkstra, K. (2010). Motor action and emotional memory. Cognition, 115(1), 179–185.Google Scholar
Crawford, L. E., Margolies, S. M., Drake, J. T., & Murphy, M. E. (2006). Affect biases memory of location: evidence for the spatial representation of affect. Cognition & Emotion, 20, 1153–1169.Google Scholar
Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dobrovol’skij, D., & Piirainen, E. (2005). Figurative language: cross-cultural and cross-linguistic perspectives. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: an introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Faber, P., & Mairal Usón, R. (1999). Constructing a lexicon of English verbs. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fainsilber, L., & Ortony, A. (1987). Metaphorical uses of language in the expression of emotions. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2, 239–250.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J. (2010). Wordle. In Steele, J. & Ilinsky, N. (Eds.), Beautiful visualization: looking at data through the eyes of experts (pp. 37–58). Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.Google Scholar
Foolen, A., Lüdtke, U., Racine, T., & Zlatev, J. (Eds.) (2012). Moving ourselves, moving others: motion and emotion in intersubjectivity, consciousness and language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forceville, C., & Urios-Aparisi, E. (2009). Multimodal metaphor. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fussell, S. R. (Ed.) (2002). The verbal communication of emotion: interdisciplinary perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fussell, S. R., & Moss, M. (1998). Figurative language in emotional communication. In Fussell, S. R. & Kreuz, R. (Eds.), Social and cognitive approaches to interpersonal communication (pp. 113–141). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Leggitt, J. S., & Turner, E. A. (2002). What’s special about figurative language in emotional communication? In Fussell, S. R. (Ed.), The verbal communication of emotion: interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 125–149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (1986). Metaphors of anger, pride, and love: a lexical approach to the structure of concepts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (1991). Happiness: a definitional effort. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 6(1), 29–46.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (1995). The ‘container’ metaphor for anger in English Chinese, Japanese and Hungarian. In Radman, Z. (Ed.), From a metaphorical point of view: a multidisciplinary approach to the cognitive content of metaphor (pp. 117–148). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2002a). Metaphor: a practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2002b). Emotion concepts: social constructionism and cognitive linguistics, In Fussell, S. R. (Ed.), The verbal communication of emotion: interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 109–124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2003). Metaphor and emotion: language, culture and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2008). The conceptual structure of happiness. In Tissari, H., Pessi, A. B., & Salmela, M. (Eds.), Happiness: cognition, experience, language. Studies across disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, 3 (pp. 131–143). Helsinki: Helsinki Collegium For Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2011). Methodological issues in conceptual metaphor theory. In Handl, S. & Schmid, H.-J. (Eds.), Windows to the mind: metaphor, metonymy and conceptual blending (pp. 23–40). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2013). Metaphor–metonymy relationship: correlation metaphors are based on metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol, 28, 75–88.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Koller, B. (2006). Language, mind and culture: a practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, G., & Dirven, R. (Eds.) (2008). Cognitive sociolinguistics: language variation, cultural models, social systems. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
McNaught, C., & Lam, P. (2010). Using Wordle as a supplementary research tool. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 630–643. Online: <http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR15-3/mcnaught.pdf>.Google Scholar
Meier, B. P., & Robinson, M. D. (2004). Why the sunny side is up: associations between affect and vertical position. Psychological Science, 15, 243–247.Google Scholar
Neumann, R., Förster, J., & Strack, F. (2003). Motor compatibility: the bidirectional link between behavior and evaluation. In Musch, J. & Klauer, K. C. (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation (pp. 371–391). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ogarkova, A., & Soriano, C. (2014a). Emotion and the body: a corpus-based investigation of metaphorical containers of anger across languages. International Journal of Cognitive Linguistics, 5(2), 147–179.Google Scholar
Ogarkova, A., & Soriano, C. (2014b). Variation within universals: the metaphorical profile approach and ANGER concepts in English, Russian, and Spanish. In Mussolf, A., MacArthur, F., & Pagani, G. (Eds.), Metaphor in intercultural communication (pp. 93–116). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Ogarkova, A., Soriano, C., & Lehr, C. (2012). Naming feeling: exploring the equivalence of emotion terms in five European languages. Dynamicity in Emotion Concepts (special issue of Lodz Studies in Language), 27, 253–284.Google Scholar
Ortony, A. (1975). Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice. Educational Theory, 25, 45–53.Google Scholar
Oster, U. (2010). Using corpus methodology for semantic and pragmatic analysis: What can corpora tell us about the linguistic expression of emotions. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(4), 727–763.Google Scholar
Özçalışkan, Ş. (2003). Metaphorical motion in cross-linguistic perspective: a comparison of English and Turkish. Metaphor and Symbol, 18(3), 189–228.Google Scholar
Özçalişkan, Ş. (2004). Encoding the manner, path, ground components of a metaphorical motion event. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 2, 73–102.Google Scholar
Özçalişkan, Ş. (2005). Metaphor meets typology: ways of moving metaphorically in English and Turkish. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(1), 207–246.Google Scholar
Özçalişkan, Ş., & Slobin, D. (1999). Learning how to search for the frog: expression of manner of motion in English, Spanish, and Turkish. In Greenhill, A., Littlefield, H., & Tano, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, vol. 2 (pp. 541–552). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Panther, K., & Radden, G. (Eds.) (1999). Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Panther, K., & Thornburg, L. (2007). Metonymy. In Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 236–264). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ponterotto, D. (2012). Metaphorical aspects of motion verbs: a contrastive view of English and Italian. In Mininni, G. & Manuti, A. (Eds.), Applied psycholinguistics: positive effects and ethical perspectives, vol. 1 (pp. 407–418). Milan: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
Ponterotto, D. (2014). HAPPINESS IS MOVING UP: conceptualizing emotions through motion verbs. In Rundblad, G., Tytus, A., Knapton, O., & Tang, C. (Eds.), Selected papers from the 4th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference. London: UK Cognitive Linguistics Association. Online: <http://www.uk-cla.org.uk/proceedings/volume_2_36>.Google Scholar
Pragglejaz Group (2007). MIP: a method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radden, G. (2002). How metonymic are metaphors? In Dirven, R. & Pörings, R. (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 407–433). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Semino, E. (2002). A sturdy baby or a derailed train: metaphorical representations of the euro in British and Italian newspapers. Text, 22(1), 107–139.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J., & Cardew-Hall, M. (2008). The folksonomy tag cloud: When is it useful?
Journal of Information Science, 34(15), 15–29.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1996). Two ways to travel: verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In Shibatani, M. & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: their form and meaning (pp. 195–220), Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1997). Mind, code, and text. In Bybee, J., Haiman, J., & Thompson, S. (Eds.), Essays on language function and language type: dedicated to T. Givon (pp. 437–467). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In Stromqvist, S. & Verhoeven, L. (Eds.), Relating events in narrative, vol. 2: Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 219–257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (2006). What makes manner of motion salient: explorations in linguistic typology, discourse and cognition. In Hickman, M. & Robert, S. (Eds.), Space across languages: linguistic systems and cognitive categories (pp. 59–81). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Steen, G., Dorst, A., Herrmann, J., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: from MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2006). Words and their metaphors: In Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 64–105). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. (Eds.) (2006). Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, T. (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1991). Path to realization: a typology of event conflation. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 17, 480–519.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. 2: Typology and process in concepts structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, J., & Soriano, C. (2005). Cognitive metaphor and empirical methods. Barcelona Language and Literature Studies (BELLS)
, 14, 1–19.Google Scholar
Viegas, F. B., Wattenberg, M., & Feinberg, J. (2009). Participatory visualization with Wordle. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics
15(6), 1137–1144.Google Scholar
Weger, U. W., Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., & Inhoff, A. W. (2007). Things are sounding up: affective influences on auditory tone perception. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 517–521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wierzbicka, A. (1990). The semantics of emotion: fear and its relatives in English. Australian Journal of Linguistics (special issue on the semantics of emotions)
, 10(2), 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1992b). Semantics, culture and cognition: universal human concepts in culture-specific configurations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1999). Emotions across language and cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2004). ‘Happiness’ in cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspective. Daedalus, 133(2), 34–43.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2009). Language and metalanguage: key issues in emotion research. Emotion Review, 1(1), 3–14.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J., Blomberg, J., & Magnusson, U. (2012). Metaphor and subjective experience: a study of motion–emotion metaphors in English, Swedish, Bulgarian, and Thai. In Foolen, A., Lüdtke, U., Racine, T., & Zlatev, J. (Eds.), Moving ourselves, moving others: motion and emotion in intersubjectivity, consciousness and language (pp. 423–450). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J., Racine, T. P., Sinha, C., & Itkonen, E. (Eds.) (2008). The shared mind: perspectives on intersubjectivity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar