Cover not available
Part of
Studies in Figurative Thought and Language
Edited by Angeliki Athanasiadou
[Human Cognitive Processing 56] 2017
► pp. 179–198

Chapter 7
The hand in figurative thought and language

| Radboud University Nijmegen
The hand is a rich source of figurative language. The paper claims that this richness has to do with the central role of the hand in human active involvement in the world. This claim fits recent developments in phenomenological philosophy, according to which cognition is based on enactive embodiment. The empirical part of the paper uses examples from Dutch and other languages, both on the lexical and the phraseological level. It turns out that most figurative uses of the words for ‘hand’ are of the metonymic type. Special attention is given to the target domain of numerals. Finally, it is shown that laterality plays a role: The right hand is used in figurative expressions with a positive connotation, whereas the left hand leads to expressions with a negative connotation.
Keywords: Dutch, enactive embodiment, hand, laterality, numerals
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The special status of the hand
  • 3.The hand as a target domain
  • 4. Hand as a source domain
    • 4.1On the word level
    • 4.2Target domains of hand in fixed expressions
      • Activity, inactivity, degree of difficulty to carry out the activity:
      • To exercise control, have a grip on something:
      • Possession, in particular money, often in relation to trade:
      • Positive human relations and emotions:
      • Negative human relations (competition, aggression, stealing)
      • Certainty
      • Evidentiality
      • Emotions
      • Time
  • 5.A special target domain: Numerals
    • Depicting numbers in writing
  • 6.Laterality
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 April 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.56.07foo
References (60)
References
Ahn, H. J., & Kwon, Y. J. 2007. A study on metaphor and metonymy of Hand. Journal of Language Sciences, 14(2), 195–215.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. F., Stokoe, W. C., & Wilcox, S. E. 1995. Gesture and the nature of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnden, J. A. 2010. Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baş, M. 2015. Conceptualization of emotion through body part idioms in Turkish: A cognitive linguistic study. PhD Hacetepe University, Ankara.Google Scholar
Bell, C. 1833. The hand: Its mechanisms and vital endowments as evincing design. London: William Pickering.Google Scholar
Blomberg, J., & Zlatev, J. 2014. Actual and non-actual motion: Why experientialist semantics needs phenomenology (and vice versa). Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 13(3), 395–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brenzinger, M., & Kraska-Szlenk, I. (Eds.). 2014. The body in language: Comparative studies of linguistic embodiment. [Brill’s studies in language, cognition and culture 8]. Leiden/Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casasanto, D. 2014. Bodily relativity. In Lawrence Shapiro (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of embodied cognition (108–117). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Corballis, M. 1991. The lopsided ape: Evolution of the generative mind. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2002. From hand to mouth: The origins of language. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Crow, T. 2004. Directionality is the key to the origin of modern Homo sapiens (the Broca-Annett axiom): A reply to Rogers’ view of ‘The speciation of modern homo sapiens’. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 9(2), 233–242.Google Scholar
Cushing, F. H. 1892. Manual concepts: A study of the influence of hand-usage on culture-growth. American Anthropologist, 5(4), 289–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dehaene, S. 1997. The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Duden. 2002. Redewendungen: Wörterbuch der deutschen Idiomatik. 2nd edition. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J., Majid, A., & van Staden, M. 2006. Cross-linguistic categorization of the body: Introduction. Language Sciences, 28, 137–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erzse, K. 2006. Hand und Fuß im interkulturellen Vergleich: Eine kontrastive Untersuchung von Redewendungen im Deutschen und Rumänischen. Germanistische Beiträge, 20–21, 179–254. [URL]
Everett, D. L. 2012. Language: The cultural tool. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. 2002. The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (435–465). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Ginneken, J. 1939. La reconstruction typologique des langues archaïques de l’humanité. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers-Maatschappij.Google Scholar
Goossens, L. 1990. Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 417–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. 1997. Cognitive foundations of grammar. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2014. The body in language: Observations from grammaticalization. In M. Brenzinger, & I. Kraska-Szlenk (Eds.), The body in language: Comparative studies of linguistic embodiment. [Brill’s studies in language, cognition and culture 8] (13–32). Leiden & Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kraska-Szlenk, I. 2014. Semantic extensions of body part terms: common patterns and their interpretation. Language Sciences, 44, 15–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Leader, D. 2016. Hands: What we do with them – and why. London: Hamish Hamilton.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C., & Holler, J. 2014. The origin of human multimodal communication. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 369, 20130302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luján M., & Ramón, E. 1999. The Indo-European system of numerals from ‘1’ to ’10’. In J. Gvozdanović (Ed.), Numeral types and changes worldwide (199–219). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maalej, Z. 2014. Body parts we live by in language and culture: The raaS ‘Head’ and yidd ‘Hand’ in Tunisian Arabic. In M. Brenzinger, & I. Kraska-Szlenk (Eds.), The body in language: Comparative studies of linguistic embodiment. [Brill’s studies in language, cognition and culture 8] (224–259). Leiden & Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maalej, Z., & Yu, N. (Eds.). 2011. Embodiment via body parts: Studies from various languages and cultures. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Majewicz, A. F. 1984. Le rôle du doigt et de la main et leurs désignations en certaines langues dans la formation des systèmes particuliers de numération et des noms de nombre. Lingua Posnaniensis, 26, 69–84.Google Scholar
Marchand, T. H. J. 2012. Knowledge in hand: Explorations of brain, hand and tool. In R. Fardon, O. Harris, T. H. J. Marchand, M. Nuttal, C. Shore, V. Strang, & R. A. Wilson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social anthropology, Vol. 2 (261–270). London: Sage Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Márquez Linares, C., & Moreno Ortiz, A. 1999. Fraseología comparada mediante el uso de córpora textuales: el caso de mano/hand. In Estudios de lingüística descriptiva y comparada (293–304). Sevilla: Kronos.Google Scholar
McGinn, C. 2015. Prehension: The hand and the emergence of humanity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
McManus, C. 2002. Right hand, left hand: The origins of asymmetry in brains, bodies, atoms and cultures. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. 2012. How language began: Gesture and speech in human evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. 1945. Phénoménologie de la perception. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Morrow, P. R. 2009. Hand and heart: A study of the uses and phraseology associated with two common nouns. Language and Culture, Publication of Nagoya University, 20:2.Google Scholar
Pasch, H. 2014. Embodiment in Zande. In M. Brenzinger, & I. Kraska-Szlenk (Eds.), The body in language: Comparative studies of linguistic embodiment. [Brill’s studies in language, cognition and culture 8] (199–223). Leiden & Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Philippa, M., Debrandere, F., Quak, A., Schoonheim, T., & van der Sijs, N. 2003–2009. Etymologisch woordenboek van het Nederlands [‘Etymological dictionary of Dutch’]. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Radman, Z. (Ed.). 2013. The hand, an organ of the mind. What the manual tells the mental. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Révész, G. 1958. The human hand: a psychological study. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. [Original: De menschelijke hand. Amsterdam: Noord Hollandsche Uitgeversmaatschappij 1941].Google Scholar
Roebroeks, W. 2014. Archeology: Art on the move. Nature, 514, 170–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Röhr, H. M. 1994. Writing: Its evolution and relation to speech. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Galera-Masegosa, A. 2011. Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value, 3(1), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadikaj, S. 2009. Metaphorische Konzepte in somatischen Phraseologismen des Deutschen und Albanischen: Eine kontrastive Untersuchung anhand von Herz- und Hand-Somatismen. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Würzburg. ([URL])
Sharifian, F., Dirven, R., Yu, N., & Niemeier, S. (Eds.). 2008. Culture, body, and language: Conceptualizations of internal body organs across cultures and languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Staffeldt, S. 2011. Die phraseologische Konstruktionsfamilie [X Präp Hand Verb]. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik, 39, 188–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stewart, J., Gapenne, O., & Di Paolo, E. A. (Eds.). 2010. Enaction: Toward a new paradigm for cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talento, S. 2014. What hands/arms can say: A corpus-based analysis of the Swahili body-art terms mkono and mikono. In M. Brenzinger, & I. Kraska-Szlenk (Eds.), The body in language: Comparative studies of linguistic embodiment. [Brill’s studies in language, cognition and culture 8] (260–283). Leiden & Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiberius, C., & Schoonheim, T. 2014. A frequency dictionary of Dutch. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vainik, E. 2009. Towards a conceptualized model of bodily communication: A study of hand-expressions in Estonian. In J. Zlatev, M. Andrén, C. Lundmark, & M. Falck Johnsson (Eds.), Studies in language and cognition (438–453). London: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. 1991. The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vogiatzis, A. 2012. Greek and English idioms with HAND: A Cognitive perspective. Master Thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Westmoreland, P. 2016. A philosophical approach to the concept of handedness: The phenomenology of lived experience in left- and right-handers. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition.Google Scholar
White, M., & Villacañas, B. 2014. Metaphor and phraseology from the language of bullfighting in Spanish. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1), 99–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wils, J. 1965. Merleau Ponty’s taalbegrip en de moderne linguïstiek [‘Merleau Ponty’s understanding of language and modern Linguistics]. Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte en Psychologie, 57(2), 1–32.Google Scholar
Wilson, F. R. 1998. The hand: How its use shapes the brain, language, and human culture. New York: Vintage books.Google Scholar
De Witte, J. J. de. 1948. De betekeniswereld van het lichaam. Taalpsychologische, taalvergelijkende studie. [The meaning world of the body. Language psychological, language comparative study]. PhD dissertation, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Woelert, P. 2014. Tool use and the human mind: From basic to materially mediated operative intentionality. Cognitive Semiotics, 7(2), 227–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Musolff, Andreas
2023. Migrants’ NATION-AS-BODY metaphors as expressions of transnational identities. Language and Intercultural Communication 23:3 ► pp. 229 ff. DOI logo
Thomou, Paraskevi & Marilena Koutoulaki
2022. From usage patterns to meaning construction. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:2 ► pp. 305 ff. DOI logo
Foolen, Ad
2019. Chapter 6. The value of left and right. In Emotion in Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 302], ► pp. 139 ff. DOI logo
Foolen, Ad
2021. Staffeldt, Sven. 2018. Gebrauchssemantik von Hand. Korpusbasierte Studien zu somatischen Phraseologismen des Deutschen mit der Konstituente Hand (Stauffenburg Linguistik, Band 98). Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag. 513 S., € 78, ISBN 978-3-95809-519-9.. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 2021:74 ► pp. 143 ff. DOI logo
Trojszczak, Marcin
2019. Chapter 11. Grounding mental metaphors in touch. In Perception Metaphors [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research, 19], ► pp. 209 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 july 2024. 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.