In:At the Crossroads of Historical and Cognitive Linguistics
Edited by Anna Rogos-Hebda and Heli Tissari
[Figurative Thought and Language 21] 2026
► pp. 148–177
heart and soul as a locus of vision
A comparative analysis of kardía and psuchḗ’s metaphoricity in Ancient Greek
Published online: 29 January 2026
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.21.07ioa
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.21.07ioa
Abstract
This is a comparative analysis of the conceptualisation of the Ancient Greek nominal terms
kardía and psuchḗ, meaning ‘heart’ and ‘soul’, respectively, in the argument
structure of the verb horáō, meaning ‘see’. The terms are analysed for their entire diachrony until
the end of Greek antiquity by the end of 6th c. AD. Methodologically, a multiple correspondence analysis is
implemented over the coding of the semantic role of all slots within horáō’s argument structure,
along with other grammatical and conceptual features. A qualitative discussion follows, offering an explanation for
the differential metaphorising potential of the two nouns, on the basis of the differences between soul and
heart’s materiality and alienability, which imply distinct prototypical schematisations defined as
schematic profiles.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction: Non-synonymy with overlapping metaphorical targets
- 2.heart and soul as the locus of vision
- 3.Operationalising the predictors and methodology
- 4.Analysis and discussion
- 4.1Distribution of factors and categories on the MCA plot
- 4.2Semantic participants
- 4.3Subjectivity and self-inspection
- 4.4tense and the contrast past-future
- 4.5mood and the over-representation of participle for kardía
- 4.6person and metaphoricity
- 4.7voice
- 5.Conclusions
References
References (23)
Clendenin, D. B. (2003). Eastern
Orthodox theology: A contemporary reader. Baker Book House Company.
Divjak, D. (2006). Ways
of intending: A corpus-based cognitive linguistic approach to near-synonyms in
Russian. In S. T. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora
in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and
lexis (pp. 19–56). Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, D. (1997). Diachronic
prototype semantics. A contribution to historical lexicology. Clarendon Press.
(2010). Criteria
for meaning discrimination and the identification of metonymy. Helsinki
symposium “Re-thinking Synonymy” (handout available at: [URL]).
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P. (1994). The
structure of lexical variation. Meaning, naming, and context. Mouton de Gruyter.
Georgakopoulos, T., Lincke, E.-S., Nikiforidou, K., & Piata, A. (2020). On
the polysemy of motion verbs in Ancient Greek and Coptic: why lexical constructions are
important. Studies in
Language, 44(1), 27–69.
Glynn, D. (2010). Synonymy,
lexical fields, and grammatical constructions. A study in usage-based Cognitive
Semantics. In H-J. Schmid & S. Handl (Eds.), Cognitive
foundations of linguistic
usage-patterns (pp. 89–118). Mouton de Gruyter.
(2014). Polysemy
and synonymy: Cognitive theory and corpus
method. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus
methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and
synonymy (pp. 7–38). John Benjamins Publishing.
Glynn, D., & Robinson, J. A. (Eds.). (2014). Corpus
methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. John Benjamins Publishing.
Gries, S. (2011). Corpus
data in usage-based linguistics. What is the right degree of granularity for the analysis of argument
structure constructions? In M. Brdar, S. Gries & M. Z. Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive
linguistics. Convergence and
expansion (pp. 237–256). John Benjamins Publishing.
Gries, S., & Divjak, D. (2009). Behavioural
profiles: A corpus-based approach to cognitive semantic
analysis. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New
directions in cognitive
linguistics (pp. 57–76). John Benjamins Publishing.
Grondelaers, S., & Geeraerts, D. (2003). Towards
a pragmatic model of cognitive onomasiology. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive
approaches to lexical
semantics (pp. 62–92). Mouton de Gruyter.
Heinämaa, S., & Reuters, M. (2009). Psychology
and philosophy. Inquiries into the soul from late scholasticism to contemporary
thought. Springer Publishing.
Janda, L., & Solovyev, V. (2009). What
constructional profiles reveal about synonymy. A case study of the Russian words for sadness and
happiness. Cognitive
Linguistics, 20, 367–393.
Jansegers, M., & Gries, S. (2017). Towards
a dynamic behavioral profile: A diachronic study of polysemous sentir in
Spanish. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic
Theory, 16(1), 1–42.
Kittay, E., & Lehrer, A. (1981). Semantic
fields and the structure of metaphor. Studies in
Language, 5, 31–63.
Kuznetsova, J. (2015). Linguistic
profiles: Going from form to meaning via statistics. Walter de Gruyter.
Roscoe, J. T. (1975). Fundamental
research statistics for the behavioral sciences (second
ed.). Holt Rinehart and Winston.