Cover not available

In:Dynamism in Metaphor and Beyond
Edited by Herbert L. Colston, Teenie Matlock and Gerard J. Steen
[Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication 9] 2022
► pp. 157–190

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Between embodiment and usage

Conventionalized figurative expressions and the notion of ‘idiom set’

 | University of Erfurt
Published online: 9 September 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.9.09ham
Abstract
This chapter investigates the roles of embodied experience and experienced language use as motivating factors in the emergence of an open set of closely related and partially conventionalized figurative expressions: up to one’s eyes in debt, up to one’s ears in a mess, etc. The case study reported analyzes 276 instantiations of the low-level construction [up to X N: body-part, poss. in Y N: mass], also referred to here as the “immersion schema”. The multimodal data are randomly taken from U.S. television as documented in the UCLA Newscape Archive, a component of the RedHen Lab, and accessed via the Erlangen corpus NewsScape English v.5. To investigate dominant usage patterns, the case study employs an adapted “covarying collexeme analysis” capturing the co-varying lexical meanings contributed by X and Y. This is complemented by coarse-grained analyses of 54 co-speech gestures in the corpus data that are co-expressive with instantiations of the immersion schema. Identifying two major subschemas, the case study shows how figurative, i.e. metonymical and metaphorical, instantiations of the immersion schema draw on the conceptual and formal framework provided by formally identical ‘literal’ instantiations verbalizing actual bodily immersion experiences. To capture the relations in this network of instantiations and account for the productivity of the schema – especially the variation and creativity to be observed with its figurative instantiations – the chapter introduces the dynamic, usage- and construction-based notion of “idiom set”.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Embodiment, usage, metaphor
  • 2.Multimodality in discourse and constructicon
  • 3.The set of expressions licensed by the ‘immersion schema’
  • 4.Case study: The idiom set licensed by [up to X in Y]
    • 4.1Corpus data and methods applied
    • 4.2Data retrieval and coding
    • 4.3Results of the quantitative analyses of the verbal instantiations
    • 4.4Interim discussion: Corpus data and embodiment
    • 4.5Co-speech gestures: Results and discussion
  • 5.Individual variation in the use of the immersion schema
  • 6.Metaphoricity and creativity in the use of immersion idioms
  • 7.Metaphor between embodiment and usage: Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (89)
References
Alibali, M. W., Boncoddo, R., & Hostetter, A. (2014). Gesture in reasoning: An embodied perspective. In L. Shapiro (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Embodied Cognition (pp. 150–159). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M., & Zeschel, A. (2010). Cognitive Corpus Linguistics: five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora, 5(1), 1–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergen, B. K. (2005). Mental simulation in literal and figurative language understanding. In S. Coulson & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), The Literal and Nonliteral in Language and Thought (pp. 255–280). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, A. (2012). Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bressem, J., & Ladewig, S. H. (2011). Rethinking gesture phases: Articulatory features of gestural movement? Semiotica, 184(4), 53–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron, L. (2008). Metaphor shifting in the dynamics of talk. In M. S. Zanotto, L. Cameron, & M. C. Cavalcanti (Eds.), Confronting Metaphor in Use: An Applied-LInguistic Approach (pp. 45–62). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010a). The discourse dynamics framework for metaphor. In L. Cameron & R. Maslen (Eds.), Metaphor Analysis: Research Practice in Applied Linguistics, Social Science and the Humanities (pp. 77–94). London: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010b). Metaphors and discourse activity. In L. Cameron & R. Maslen (Eds.), Metaphor Analysis: Research Practice in Applied Linguistics, Social Science and the Humanities (pp. 77–94). London: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron, L., & Deignan, A. (2006). The emergence of metaphor in discourse Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 671–690. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron, L., Maslen, R., Todd, Z., Maule, J., Stratton, P., & Stanley, N. (2009). The discourse dynamics approach to metaphor and metaphor-led discourse analysis. Metaphor and Symbol, 24(2), 63–89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Casasanto, D. (2013). Development of metaphorical thinking: The role of language. In M. Borkent, B. Dancygier, & J. Hinnell (Eds.), Language and the Creative Mind (pp. 3–18). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Experiential origins of mental metaphors: Language, culture, and the body. In M. J. Landau, M. D. Robinson, & B. P. Meier (Eds.), The Power of Metaphor: Examining its Influence on Social Life (pp. 249–268). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cienki, A. (1998). Metaphoric gestures and some of their relations to verbal metaphoric expressions. In J.-P. Koenig (Ed.), Discourse and Cognition (pp. 189–204). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Multimodal metaphor analysis. In L. Cameron & R. Maslen (Eds.), Metaphor Analysis: Research Practice in Applied Linguistics, Social Science and the Humanities (pp. 195–216). London: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Cognitive Linguistics. Spoken language and gesture as expressions of conceptualization. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. Ladewig, D. McNeill, & S. Teßendorf (Eds.), Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction (pp. 182–201). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Cognitive Lingustics, gesture studies and multimodal communication. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 603–618. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Utterance Construction Grammar (UCxG) and the variable multimodality of constructions. Linguistics Vanguard, 13(s1), 20160048. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cienki, A., & Müller, C. (Eds.). (2008). Metaphor and Gesture. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, H. L. (2015). Using Figurative Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2016). Cognitive Linguistics’ seven deadly sins. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 479–491. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’ Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of Let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1992). What do idioms really mean?. Journal of Memory and Language 31, 485–506. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). Why idioms are not dead metaphors. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (Eds.), Idioms, Processing Structure and Interpretation (pp. 57–77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. & G. J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 145–166). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Embodied experience and linguistic meaning. Brain and Language, 84, 1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Embodiment in Metaphorical Imagination. In D. Pecher & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding Cognition. The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking (pp. 65–92). Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge, New York, etc.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Metaphors, snowflakes, and termite nests. How nature creates such beautiful things. In F. MacArthur, J. L. Oncins-Martínez, M. Sanchez-García, & A. M. Piquer-Píriz (Eds.), Metaphor in Use. Context, Culture and Communication (pp. 347–371). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Metaphor, language and dynamical systems. In E. Semino & Z. Demjén (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language (pp. 56–69). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., Bogdanovich, J. M., Sykes, J. R., & Barr, D. J. (1997). Metaphor in idiom comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 141–154. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Cameron, L. (2008). The social-cognitive dynamics of metaphor performance. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research, 9(1–2), 64–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., Gould, J., & Andric, M. (2006). Imagining metaphorical actions: Embodied simulations make the impossible plausible. Imagination, Cognition, & Personality, 25, 221–238. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., Lima, P. L. C., & Francozo, E. (2004). Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1189–1210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Matlock, T. (2008). Metaphor, imagination, and simulation: Psycholinguistic evidence. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp. 161–176). Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & O’Brien, J. (1990). Idioms and mental imagery: The metaphorical motivation for idiomatic meaning. Cognition, 36, 35–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford, etc.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Explain me this: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending Collostructional Analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9, 27–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hampe, B. (2017). Embodiment and discourse: Dimensions and dynamics of contemporary metaphor theory. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor. Embodied Cognition and Discourse (pp. 1–23). Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2017). Multimodal constructs – multimodal constructions? The role of constructions in the working memory. Linguistics Vanguard, 3(s1), 20160042. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hostetter, A., & Alibali, M. (2008). Visible embodiment: Gestures as simulated action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(3), 495–514. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janda, L. A. (Ed.) (2013). Cognitive Linguistics: The Quantitative Turn. The Essential Reader. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1988). How gestures can become like words. In F. Poyatos (Ed.), Cross-Cultural Perspectives in Nonverbal Communication. (pp. 131–141).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Gesture: Visual Action as Utterance. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2009). Metaphor, Culture, and Discourse: The Pressure of Coherence. In A. Musolff & J. Zinken (Eds.), Metaphor and Discourse (pp. 11–24). Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Woman, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought. 2nd Edition. (pp. 202–251). Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language (pp. 1–64). Stanford, CA: CSLI-Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind. What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Introduction In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and Gesture (pp. 1–10). Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Gesture and Thought. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNeill, D., & Duncan, S. D. (2000). Growth points in thinking-for-speaking. In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and Gesture. Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mittelberg, I. (2010). Geometric and image-schematic patterns in gesture space. In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, Cognition and Space: The State of the Art and New Directions (pp. 351–385). London: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). The exbodied mind. Cognitive-semiotic principles as motivating forces in gesture. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. Ladewig, D. McNeill, & S. Teßendorf (Eds.), Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction. (pp. 750–779). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Multimodal existential constructions in German: Manual actions of giving as experiential substrate for grammatical and gestural patterns. Linguistics Vanguard, 3(s1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moon, R. (1998). Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English. A Corpus-Based Approach. Auckland: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, C. (2008a). Metaphors Dead and Alive, Sleeping and Waking. A Dynamic View. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008b). What gestures reveal about the nature of metaphor. In A. Cienki & C. Müller (Eds.), Metaphor and Gesture (pp. 219–245). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, C., & Cienki, A. (2009). Metaphor, gestures, and beyond: Forms of multimodal metaphor in the use of spoken language. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 293–321). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, C., & Tag, S. (2010). The dynamics of metaphor: Foregrounding and activating metaphoricity in conversational interaction. Cognitive Semiotics, 10(6), 85–120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nayak, N., & Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1990). Conceptual knowledge in the interpretation of idioms. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 119, 315–330. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ningelgen, J., & Auer, P. (2017). Is there a multimodal cnstruction based on non-deictic so in German? Linguistics Vanguard, 3(s1), 20160051. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nunberg, G., Sag, I. A., & Wasow, T. (1994). Idioms. Language, 70(3), 491–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibañez, F. J. (2017). Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: From basicity to complexity. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor. Embodied Cognition and Discourse. (pp. 138–159). Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2000). English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Does frequency in text instantiate entrenchment? In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven Approaches. (pp. 101–133). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Why cognitive linguistics must embrace the social and pragmatic dimensions of language and how it could do so more seriously. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 543–557. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). The Dynamics of the Linguistic System. Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford, etc.: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schoonjans, S. (2017). Multimodal Construction Grammar issues are Construction Grammar issues. Linguistics Vanguard, 3(s1), 20160050. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, F., & Turner, M. (2013). Multimodal Construction Grammar. In M. Borkent, B. Dancygier, & J. Hinnell (Eds.), Language and the Creative Mind. Stanford: CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G. J. (2008). The Paradox of Metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 213–241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Deliberate metaphor affords conscious metaphorical thought Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1–2), 179–197. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Flach, S. (2017). The corpus-based perspective on entrenchment. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge. (pp. 101–127). Berlin/Washington, DC: de Gruyter Mouton and APA. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (2005). Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and LinguisticTheory, 1(1), 1–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. (2007). Looking at space to study mental spaces. Co-speech gesture as a crucial data source in cognitive linguistics. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson, & M. J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 201–224). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turner, M. (2014). Language, gesture and bodily stance: Grammar as a multi-modal system. Вестник Челябинского государственного университета, 336(7), 40–47.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winter, B., & Matlock, T. (2017). Primary Metaphors are both Cultural and Embodied. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodiment and Discourse (pp. 99–115). Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ziem, A. (2017). Do we really need a Multimodal Construction Grammar? Linguistics Vanguard, 3(s1), 20160095. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zima, E. (2017). On the multimodality of [all the way from X PREP Y]. Linguistics Vanguard, 3(s1), 20160055. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zima, E., & Bergs, A. (2017). Towards a multimodal construction grammar. Special issue. In Linguistics Vanguard. A Multimodal Journal for the Language Sciences 3 (s1).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zinken, J. (2007). Discourse metaphors: The link between figurative language and habitual analogies. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(3), 445–466. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zinken, J., & Musolff, A. (2009). A Discourse-Centred Perspective on Metaphorical Meaning and Understanding. In A. Musolff & J. Zinken (Eds.), Metaphor and Discourse (pp. 1–8). Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Ivorra Ordines, Pedro & Maricel Esteban Fonollos
2023. Hasta los huesos, bis in die Knochen. Construcciones fraseológicas somáticas en contraste a través de corpus. Revista de Filología Alemana 31 ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo
Colston, Herbert L. & Carina Rasse
2022. Figurativity. In Dynamism in Metaphor and Beyond [Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication, 9], ► pp. 243 ff. DOI logo
Hoffmann, Thomas
2022. Constructionist approaches to creativity. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 10:1 ► pp. 259 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue