Abstract
The aim of this article is to demonstrate that an integrated methodology can shed a new light on the understanding of notions inherent in contemporary conceptual approaches to linguistic analysis. One of the key ideas around which the cognitive paradigm is built is conventionality. It is assumed, however, that various strands of the cognitive enterprise view conventionality in dissimilar ways. Consequently, by extrapolating diverse interpretations of the notion, we are going to argue that certain conceptual approaches are more cognitive than others. As a result, it will be argued that a conceptual metaphor methodology, an apparently dominant approach to the semantics of emotion terms, is too coarse-grained to account for the richness of cognitive processes observable in real data. Providing a corpus-assisted verification of selected instantiations of the attributive construction, we are going to argue that a conceptual metaphor approach cannot be successfully applied within a usage-based model.
References
Allwood, Jens 2003 “Meaning potentials and context: Some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning”, in: Hubert Cuyckens et al. (eds.), 29-66.
Cuyckens, Hubert - René Dirven - John Taylor (eds.) 2003 Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Boas, Hans C. 2003 A constructional approach to resultatives. (Stanford Monographs in Linguistics.) Stanford: Centre for the Study of Language and Information.
Cameron, Lynne J. 2003 Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum.
Chłopicki, Władysław - Andrzej Pawelec - Agnieszka Pokojska (eds.) 2007 Cognition in language: Volume in honour of Professor Elżbieta Tabakowska. Kraków: Tertium.
Clark, Herbert H. 1996 Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, William 2001 Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Deignan, Alice 2005 Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Deignan, Alice 2006 “The grammar of linguistic metaphors”, in: Anatol Stefanowitsch - Stefan Th. Gries (eds.), 106-123.
Dirven, René 2005 “Major strands in Cognitive Linguistics”, in: Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez - Sandra Peña Cervel (eds.), 17-68.
Evans, Vyvyan 2006 “Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction”, Cognitive Linguistics 17(4): 491-534.
Evans, Vyvyan - Melanie Green 2006 Cognitive Linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fauconnier, Giles - Mark Turner 2002 The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1985 “Frames and the semantics of understanding”, Quaderni di Semantica 6: 222- 254.
Frijda, Nico H. 1986 The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Geeraerts, Dirk 2003 “Decontextualizing and recontextualizing tendencies in 20th century linguistics and literary theory”, in: Ewald Mengel et al. (eds.), 369-379. 2006 “Introduction: A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics”, in: Dirk Geeraerts (ed.), 1-28.
Geeraerts, Dirk (ed.) 2006 Cognitive Linguistics: Basic readings. Berlin - New York: Mounton de Gruyter.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995 Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Giora, Rachel 1999 “On the priority of salient meanings: Studies of literal and figurative language”, Journal of Pragmatics 31/7: 919-929.
Glynn, Dylan 2004 “Constructions at the crossroads: the place of construction grammar between field and frame”, Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 2: 197-233.
Haiman, John 1980 “Dictionaries and encyclopedias”, Lingua 50: 329-357.
Hampe, Beate - Joseph E. Grady (eds.) 2005 From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hanks, Patrick 2006 “Metaphoricity is gradable”, in: Anatol Stefanowitsch - Stefan Th. Gries (eds.),17-36.
Hudson, Richard 2008 “Word grammar and construction grammar”, in: Graeme Trousdale - Nikolas Gisborne (eds.), 257-302.
Kövecses, Zoltán 2000 Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2002 Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, George 1987 Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George - Mark Johnson. 1980 Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 2005 “Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so”, in: Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez - Sandra Peña Cervel (eds.), 101-159. 2008 Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McRae, Kenneth J.- Michael Spivey-Knowlton - Michael K. Tanenhaus 1998 “Modelling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension”, Journal of Memory and Language 38: 283-312.
Mengel, Ewald - Hans-Jorg Schmid - Michael Steppard (eds.) 2003 Anglistentag 2002 Bayreuth. Trier: Wissenschaftliger Verlag.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. - Sandra Peña Cervel (eds.) 2005 Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction. (Cognitive Linguistics Research 32.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Solomon, Robert C. 1976 The passions. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
Steen, Gerard J. 2002 “Metaphor identification: A cognitive approach”, Style 36/3: 386-407. 2007 Finding metaphor in grammar and usage. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol 2006 “Words and their metaphors: A Corpus-based approach”, in: Anatol Stefanowitsch - Stefan Th. Gries (eds.), 63-105.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol - Stefan Th. Gries 2003 “Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions”, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8/2: 209-243.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol - Stefan Th. Gries (eds.) 2006 Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter.
Stern, Josef 2000 Metaphor in context. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Strugielska, Ariadna 2010 “Metafora konceptualna - między kategorią klasyczną a modelem potocznym”, in: Zdzisław Wąsik - Aleksandra Wach (eds.), 109-121.
Szwedek, Aleksander 2007 “Polysemy and metaphorization”, in: Władysław Chłopicki et al. (eds.), 255-272.
Taylor, John 2002 Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Trousdale, Graeme - Nikolas Gisborne (eds.) 2008 Constructional approaches to English grammar. Berlin - New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Vandeloise, Claude 1994 Spatial prepositions: A case study from French. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Wąsik, Zdzisław - Aleksandra Wach (eds.) 2010 Heteronomie glottodydaktyki: Domeny, pogranicza i specjalizacje nauczania językówobcych. Księga jubileuszowa z okazji sześćdziesięciolecia urodzin prof. dr hab. TeresySiek-Piskozub. Poznań: Instytut Filologii Angielskiej UAM.
Zlatev, Jordan 2005 “What’s in a schema? Bodily mimesis and the grounding of language”, in: Beate Hampe - Joseph E. Grady (eds.), 313-342.
BNC: The British National Corpus. [Available at: http:// www.view.byu.edu ED 01.2011].
Kemmer, Suzanne 2005 “Constructional profiles as the basis of semantic analysis”, [Paper read at the Converging and Diverging Trends in Cognitive Linguistics conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 17-18 October. Available at: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kemmer/DUB3.ppt].