Cover not available

Article published In: Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 30:1 (2017) ► pp.299–324

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

Conceptual complexes in cognitive modeling

 | University of La Rioja
Published online: 23 November 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.30.1.12rui
Abstract
The present paper goes beyond previous treatments of cognitive models, especially conceptual metaphor and metonymy, by drawing on linguistic evidence. It introduces needed refinements into previous meaning construction accounts by investigating the activity of conceptual complexes, i.e., combinations of cognitive models whose existence can be detected from a careful examination of the meaning effects of some linguistic expressions. This improvement endows the linguist with a more powerful set of analytical tools capable of dealing with a broader range of phenomena than previous theories. The paper first explores metaphoric and metonymic complexes, and their meaning effects. Then, it addresses the metonymic exploitation of frame complexes and image-schematic complexes. The resulting analytical apparatus proves applicable to the study of fictive motion and image-schema transformations, which have so far been addressed in Cognitive Linguistics without making explicit any relation between them or with other phenomena. We give evidence that these two phenomena can be dealt with as specific cases of metonymic domain expansion and domain reduction respectively. This means that fictive motion and image-schema transformations can be fully integrated into an encompassing account of cognitive modeling based on the activity of single or combined cognitive operations on basic or complex cognitive models.
Resumen
El presente artículo va más allá de los tratamientos previos sobre modelos cognitivos, especialmente metáfora conceptual y metonimia, basándose en evidencia lingüística. Introduce los refinamientos necesarios en modelos anteriores sobre construcción de significado investigando la actividad de complejos conceptuales, es decir, combinaciones de modelos cognitivos cuya existencia se puede detectar a partir de un examen cuidadoso de los efectos de significado de algunas expresiones lingüísticas. Esta mejora proporciona al lingüista un conjunto más poderoso de herramientas analíticas capaces de manejar una gama más amplia de fenómenos que las teorías anteriores. El artículo explora primero los complejos metafóricos y metonímicos, junto con sus efectos de significado. Luego, se ocupa de la explotación metonímica de complejos de marcos y complejos de esquemas de imágenes. Este aparato analítico resulta aplicable al estudio del movimiento ficticio y de las transformaciones de esquemas de imágenes, fenómenos que hasta ahora se han tratado en Lingüística Cognitiva sin hacer explícita ninguna relación entre ellos o con otros fenómenos. Damos evidencia de que estos dos fenómenos pueden tratarse como casos específicos de metonimia basada respectivamente en expansión de dominio y en reducción de dominio. Esto significa que las transformaciones del movimiento ficticio y del esquema de la imagen pueden integrarse completamente en una explicación amplia de la modelación cognitiva basada en la actividad de operaciones cognitivas únicas o combinadas sobre la base de modelos cognitivos básicos o complejos.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.What is a cognitive model?
  • 3.Conceptual complexes
    • 3.1Frame complexes
    • 3.2Image-schematic complexes
    • 3.3Combining cognitive operations
      • 3.3.1Metaphtonymy
      • 3.3.2Chaining metonymies
      • 3.3.3Chaining metaphors
      • 3.3.4Amalgamating metaphors
  • 4.The metaphoric and metonymic exploitation of frame and image-schematic complexes
    • 4.1Frame complexes, metaphor, and metonymy
    • 4.2Image-schematic complexes and metonymy
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (43)
References
Boas, H. C. (2005). From theory to practice: Frame Semantics and the design of FrameNet. In S. Langer & D. Schnorbusch (Eds.), Semantik im lexikon (pp. 129–160). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 61, 222–255.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Johnson, C. R., & Petruck, M. R. L. (2003). Background to Framenet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 235–250. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind & Language, 21(3), 434–458. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Experimental tests of figurative meaning construction. In G. Radden, K. M. Köpke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.) Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 19–32). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529–562. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glebkin, V. (2013). A critical view of Conceptual Blending Theory. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2404–2409). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grady, J. E. (1997). theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: correlation vs. resemblance. In R. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grady, J., Oakley, T., & Coulson, S. (1999). Blending and metaphor. In G. Steen & R. W. Gibbs (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hampe, B. (Ed.). (2005). From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 91, 37–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.) (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume 1: Theoretical pre- requisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 41, 1–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matlock, T. (2004). The conceptual motivation of fictive motion. In G. Radden & K. -U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 221–248). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Abstract motion is no longer abstract. Language and Cognition, 2(2), 243–260. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peña, S. (2003). Topology and cognition: What image-schemas reveal about the metaphorical language of emotions. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Dependency systems for image-schematic patterns in a usage-based approach to language. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(6), 1041–1066. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peña, S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2009). Metonymic and metaphoric bases of two image-schema transformations. In K. -U. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 339–361). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rao, S. M., Mayer, A. R., & Harrington, D. L. (2001). The evolution of brain activation during temporal processing. Nature Neuroscience, 4(3), 317–323. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Richardson, D. C., & Matlock, T. (2007). The integration of figurative language and static depictions: An eye movement study of fictive motion. Cognition, 1021, 129–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2008). Cross-linguistic analysis, second language teaching and cognitive semantics: The case of Spanish diminutives and reflexive constructions. In S. De Knop & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to Pedagogical Grammar: Volume in honor of René Dirven (pp. 121–152). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 103–123). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). On the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explanation: Towards settling some controversies. In J. Littlemore & J. Taylor (Eds.), Bloomsbury companion to Cognitive Linguistics (143–166). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez, O. I. (2002). Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–532). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A. (2011). Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value, 3(1), 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L. (2011). The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 261, 161–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000a). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume I: Concept structuring system. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000b). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Attention phenomena. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 264–293). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Concept structuring systems in language. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Vol. II1. (pp. 15–46). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Veale, T. (2005). Incongruity on humor: Root cause or epiphenomenon? Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 17(4), 419–428.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Kljajevic, Vanja & Ljiljana Šarić
2025. Corpus-Based Investigation of Proverbs: Challenges and New Directions. Corpus Pragmatics 9:2 ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo
Altakhaineh, Abdel Rahman M. & Aseel Zibin
2024. Filial Construct States in Arabic: Exploring Metaphtonymies and Embodied Cultural Cognition. Cognitive Studies | Études cognitives :24 DOI logo
Kratochvílová, Dana
2024. Review of Peña-Cervel & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (2022): Figuring out figuration: A cognitive linguistic account. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 22:1 ► pp. 289 ff. DOI logo
Pavlović, Vladan, Aleksandra Janić Mitić & Ivana Mitić
2024. Motion-related image schemas in Serbian journalistic articles. Review of Cognitive Linguistics DOI logo
Iakovleva, Elena A., Natalia S. Voronova, Ermin E. Sharich & Daria D. Iakovleva
2023. Modeling the Decision-Making Process Based on Cyber-Physical Technologies. In Cyber-Physical Systems and Control II [Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, 460], ► pp. 565 ff. DOI logo
Baeskow, Heike
2022. Experiencing the Conceptual Wealth of Non‐Derived Denominal Verbs: A Multi‐Level, Simulation‐Based Approach*. Studia Linguistica 76:2 ► pp. 591 ff. DOI logo
Haddad Haddad, Amal
2022. Image Schemas and Image Schematic Complexes: Enhancing Neural Machine Translation Networks. In Computational and Corpus-Based Phraseology [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 13528], ► pp. 105 ff. DOI logo
Voronova, Natalia S., Andrei N. Vinogradov, Ermin E. Sharich & Daria D. Iakovleva
2022. Designing a Decision Support System for Capital Markets. In System Analysis in Engineering and Control [Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, 442], ► pp. 473 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Motion metaphors in music criticism [Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication, 10], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Figuring out Figuration [Figurative Thought and Language, 14], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 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