Article published In: Perception, Culture and Language
Edited by Judit Baranyiné Kóczy and Rita Brdar-Szabó
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies 10:2] 2023
► pp. 367–397
Cultural models mediating between visual sensation and semiotic systems, exemplified on visual, alpha-pictorial and verbal-gestural communication
Published online: 17 November 2023
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00105.brd
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00105.brd
Abstract
People often see what they want to see (or hear, or taste, etc.), i.e., our mind imperceptibly edits our actual
sensations. Culture may function, metaphorically speaking, as a pair of glasses that filters light, because it may be tinted, or
have different lenses. In this article we study how visual sensations are filtered and edited, either reduced or enriched, so as
to produce perceptions fitting the cultural models we have, and how this interaction is reflected in semiotic systems, i.e., in
visual, multimodal, and verbal-gestural communication. Accordingly, we offer three case studies in which we demonstrate the claim
that variably articulated cultural models (often networks of related cultural models) we have influence whether, and how, we
experience something as being of metaphorical or metonymic nature.
Keywords: cultural model, metonymy, metaphor, visual metonymy, multimodality
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.On cultural models and conceptual metonymies (and metaphors)
- 3.Case studies demonstrating the role of metonymies and metaphors in matching perceptions with the cultural background
knowledge
- 3.1Visual metonymies and metaphors in The Mérode Altarpiece (by the workshop of Robert Campin)
- 3.2Alpha-pictorial type of multimodal communication – mixing graphemes and images
- 3.3Gestural communication: When football players cross themselves during a match
- 4.Conclusions and outlooks for further research
- Notes
References
References (54)
Ahluwalia, A. (1978). An
intra-cultural investigation of susceptibility to ‘perspective’ and ‘non-perspective’ spatial
illusions. British Journal of
Psychology, 69(2), 233–241.
Appelbaum, R. (2006). Aguecheek’s
beef, belch’s hiccup, and other gastronomic interjections: Literature, culture, and food among the early
moderns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2006). See
what you want to see: Motivational influences on visual perception. Journal of Personality and
Social
Psychology, 91(4), 612–625.
Barcelona, A. (2000a). Introduction:
The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor
and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive
perspective (pp. 1–28). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2000b). On
the plausibility of claiming a métonymie motivation for conceptual
metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor
and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive
perspective (pp. 31–58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2022). Purely
inferential metonymies. Plenary talk at AELCO
12, June 27–29, Logroño, University of La
Rioja.
Berry, J. W. (1968). Ecology,
perceptual development and the Müller-Lyer illusion. British Journal of
Psychology, 59(3), 205–210.
Brdar, M. (2017). Metonymy
and word-formation: Their interactions and complementation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
(2019). On
the regularity of metonymy across languages (exemplified on some metonymies in medical
discourse). ExELL. Explorations in English Language and
Linguistics, 7(1), 52–69.
(2021). Walking
gastrolinguistic landscapes, with metonymy as a travel-guide. Collegium
Antropologicum, 45(4), 307–317.
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2007). When
Zidane is not simply Zidane, and Bill Gates is not just Bill Gates: Some thoughts on the construction of metaphtonymic
meanings of proper names. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects
of meaning
construction (pp. 125–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. (2021). Metonymic
indeterminacy and metalepsis: Getting two (or more) targets for the price of one
vehicle. In A. Soares da Silva (Ed.), Figurative
language – Intersubjectivity and
usage (pp. 175–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Burenhult, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2008). Language
and landscape: A cross-linguistic perspective. Language
Sciences, 30(2–3), 135–150.
D’Andrade, R. (1987). A
folk model of the mind. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural
models in language and
thought (pp. 112–148). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
David, O., Lakoff, G., & Stickles, E. (2016). Cascades
in metaphor and grammar: A case study of metaphors in the gun debate. Constructions and
Frames, 8(2), 214–255.
Deręgowski, J. B. (1998). W.
H. R. Rivers (1864–1922): The founder of research in cross-cultural
perception. Perception, 27(12), 1393–1406.
Forceville, C. (2009). Non-verbal
and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for
research. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal
metaphor (pp. 19–44). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Freeman, M. B. (1957). The
iconography of the Merode Altarpiece. The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Bulletin, 16(4), 130–139.
Geeraerts, D. (2003). Cultural
models of linguistic standardization. In R. Dirven, R. Frank & M. Pütz (Eds.), Cognitive
models in language and thought: Ideology, metaphors and
meanings (pp. 25–68). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
de Jorio, A. (2000). Gesture
in Naples and gesture in classical antiquity: A translation of Andrea de Jorio’s La mimica degli antichi investigata nel
gestire napoletano. (A. Kendon, Trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Jahoda, G. (1966). Geometric
illusions and environment: A study in Ghana. British Journal of
Psychology, 57(1–2), 193–199.
(1971). Retinal
pigmentation, illusion susceptibility and space perception. International Journal of
Psychology, 6(3), 199–207.
Kemperdick, S. (1997). Der meister von Flémalle: Die werkstatt Robert Campins und Rogier van der Weyden [The master of Flémalle: The workshop of Robert Campin and Rogier de
Weyden]. Turnhout: Brepols.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor
in culture: Universality and
variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy:
Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive
Linguistics, 9(1), 37–78.
Mittelberg, I. (2019). Visuo-kinetic
signs are inherently metonymic: How embodied metonymy motivates forms, functions, and schematic patterns in
gesture. Frontiers in
Psychology, 101, Article 254.
Müller-Lyer, F. C. (1889). Optische
urteilstäuschungen [Optical illusions]. Archiv für Physiologie, Suppl.
1889, 263–270.
Panther, K.-U. (2005). The
role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive
linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary
interaction (pp. 353–386). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pollack, R. H., & Silvar, S. D. (1967). Magnitude
of the Mueller-Lyer illusion in children as a function of pigmentation of the Fundus
oculi. Psychonomic
Science, 81, 83–84.
Polzenhagen, F., & Dirven, R. (2008). Rationalist
or romantic model in globalisation?. In G. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive
sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social
systems (pp. 237–300). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Quinn, N., & Holland, D. (1987). Culture
and cognition. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural
models in language and
thought (pp. 3–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reuterswärd, P. (1998). New
light on Robert Campin. Konsthistorisk tidskrift/Journal of Art
History, 67(1), 43–54.
Ridderbos, B. (2022). Choices
and intentions in the Mérode Altarpiece. Journal of Historians of Netherlandish
Art, 14(1), 2–43.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2000). The
role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor
and metonymy at the
crossroads (pp. 109–132). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Díez Velasco, O. I. (2002). Patterns
of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor
and metonymy in comparison and
contrast (pp. 489–532). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2004). Metonymic
motivation in anaphoric reference. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies
in linguistic
motivation (pp. 293–320). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Mairal-Usón, R. (2007). High-level
metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects
of meaning
construction (pp. 33–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Otal Campo, J. L. (2002). Metonymy,
grammar, and communication. Albolote: Editorial Comares.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F., & Pérez Hernández, L. (2001). Metonymy
and the grammar: motivation, constraints and interaction. Language and
Communication, 21(4), 321–357.
Schapiro, M. (1945). “Muscipula
diaboli,” the symbolism of the Mérode Altarpiece. The Art
Bulletin, 27(3), 182–187.
Segall, M. H., Campbell, D. T., & Herskovits, M. J. (1963). Cultural
differences in the perception of geometric
illusions. Science, 139(3556), 769–771.
Snyder, J. (2005). Northern
renaissance art: Painting, sculpture, the graphic arts from 1350 to 1575 (2nd
ed). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Wierzbicka, A. (2020). Addressing
God in European languages: Different meanings, different cultural attitudes. Russian Journal of
Linguistics, 24(2), 259–293.
Wolff, M., Morceau, S., Folkard, R., Martin-Cortecero, J., & Groh, A. (2021). A
thalamic bridge from sensory perception to cognition. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral
Reviews, 1201, 222–235.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Zhao, Xuan
2024. Review of Horváth & Simon (2022): Negative Emotions in the Reception of Fictional Narratives: A Cognitive Approach. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 11:1 ► pp. 242 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
