Metaphtonymic interplay in the embodied language of fear

1. Metaphtonymic interplay in the embodied language of fear Anna Rewiś-Łętkowska

2. Methodology and Data Top-down approach adopted by Kovecses (e.g. 1990, 2000, 2002, 2005): ‘language, particularly its lexicon, is a reflection of our conceptual system’ (Kovecses 1990: 41) Lexicographic sources, linguistic expressions elicited from native speakers(relatively small proportion of data).  

3. Theconceptual model of fear - based on three organizing principles. This limited number of metaphoric and metonymic themes interact with each other,and combine with metaphors which are less central to the concept of fear. CONTAINMENT image schema • FEAR IS A BIG RESERVOIR OF WATER • HUMAN BODY IS A CONTAINER and FEAR IS A (LIQUID) SUBSTANCE INSIDE • HUMAN BODY IS A CONTAINER WITH A SUBSTANCE INSIDE, FEAR IS AN OBJECT THAT CAN BE PUT INSIDE FEAR IS A DANGEROUS/HOSTILE ENTITY metaphor • FEAR IS A HOSTILE HUMAN (HUMAN-LIKE) BEING • FEAR IS A DANGEROUS ANIMAL • FEAR IS A DANGEROUS OBJECT Metaphors from the PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECT OF FEAR STANDS FOR FEAR metonymy - metaphtonimic concepts • DROP IN BODY TEMPERATURE STANDS FOR FEAR - FEAR IS COLD • SYMPTOMS OF AN ILLNESS STAND FOR FEAR - FEAR IS AN ILLNESS

4. CONTAINMENT structure of fear metaphors Linguistic manifestations of the metaphor FEAR IS A BIG RESERVOIR OF WATER in English and Polish

5. CONTAINMENT structure of fear metaphors Linguistic manifestations of the metaphors HUMAN BODY IS A CONTAINER and FEAR IS A(LIQUID) SUBSTANCE INSIDE in English and Polish and their motivation by the metonymy PART FOR WHOLE

6. CONTAINMENT structure of fear metaphors Linguistic manifestations of the metaphors HUMAN BODY IS A CONTAINER WITH A SUBSTANCE INSIDE, FEAR IS AN OBJECT THAT CAN BE PUT INSIDE, BODY IS A CONTAINER WITH SOIL INSIDE, and FEAR IS A SEED THAT CAN BE PUT INSIDE in English and Polish and their motivation by the metonymy PART FOR WHOLE

7. FEAR IS A HOSTILE/DANGEROUS ENTITY as a master metaphor of fear Linguistic manifestations of the metaphors FEAR IS A HOSTILE/DANGEROUS ENTITY in English and Polish –the entity is A HUMAN BEING

8. FEAR IS A HOSTILE/DANGEROUS ENTITY as a master metaphor of fear Linguistic manifestations of the metaphors FEAR IS A HOSTILE/DANGEROUS ENTITY in English and Polish – the entity is AN ANIMAL

9. FEAR IS A HOSTILE/DANGEROUS ENTITY as a master metaphor of fear Linguistic manifestations of the metaphors FEAR IS A HOSTILE/DANGEROUS ENTITY in English and Polish – the entity is AN INANIMATE OBJECT

10. Metaphors from the PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECT OF FEAR STANDS FOR FEAR metonymy Metaphtonymic conceptualizations : DROP IN BODY TEMPERATURE STANDS FOR FEAR - FEAR IS COLD

11. Metaphors from the PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECT OF FEAR STANDS FOR FEAR metonymy Metaphtonymic conceptualizations of fear : SYMPTOMS OF AN ILLNESS STAND FOR FEAR - FEAR IS AN ILLNESS

12. Metaphors from the PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECT OF FEAR STANDS FOR FEAR metonymy Metaphtonymic conceptualizations of fear instantiated by English and Polish linguistic expressions : SYMPTOMS OF AN ILLNESS STAND FOR FEAR - FEAR IS AN ILLNESS

13. Metaphors from the PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECT OF FEAR STANDS FOR FEAR metonymy Metaphtonymic conceptualizations of fear instantiated by English and Polish linguistic expressions : SYMPTOMS OF AN ILLNESS STAND FOR FEAR - FEAR IS AN ILLNESS

14. Metaphors from the PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECT OF FEAR STANDS FOR FEAR metonymy Metaphtonymic conceptualizations of fear instantiated by English and Polish linguistic expressions : SYMPTOMS OF AN ILLNESS STAND FOR FEAR - FEAR IS AN ILLNESS

15. Metaphors from the PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECT OF FEAR STANDS FOR FEAR metonymy Metaphtonymic conceptualizations of fear instantiated by English and Polish linguistic expressions : SYMPTOMS OF AN ILLNESS STAND FOR FEAR - FEAR IS AN ILLNESS

16. References Barcelona, Antonio. 2000. ‘On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor’. Antonio Barcelona (ed.) Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 31-58. Croft, William. 2006. ‘The Role of Domains in the Interpretation of Metaphors and Metonymies’. Dirk Geeraerts (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 269-302. Goossens, Louis. 2002 [1990]. ‘Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action’. RenéDirven and RalphPorings (eds), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter, 349-377. Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Kövecses, Zoltan. 1990. Emotion Concepts. New York: Springer. Kövecses, Zoltan. 2000. Metaphor and Emotion. Language, Culture, and Body in Human Feeling. Cambridge: CUP. Kövecses, Zoltan. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: OUP. Kövecses, Zoltan. 2005. Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge: CUP. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, George. and M. Johnson.1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, George. and Z. Kövecses. 1987. ‘The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English’. Dorothy Holland and Naomi Quinn (Eds), Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 195-221 Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco. 2000. ‘The role of mapping and domains in understanding metonymy’. Antonio Barcelona (ed.) Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 109-132. Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco and O. Díez,. 2002. ‘Patterns of conceptual interaction’. René Dirven and Ralph Pörings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 489-532