Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 20:2 (2022) ► pp.305–329

From usage patterns to meaning construction

Evidence from ear and eye figurative constructions

ORCID logo | University of Crete
| University of Crete
The present study investigates the meaning construction emerging from figurative constructions involving ear and eye in Modern Greek. The study concerns authentic language data retrieved from a corpus search. Analysis takes into consideration the embodiment hypothesis, the development of chained metonymies and the interaction of metaphor and metonymy as the motivation for the usage patterns under investigation. The constructions analyzed reveal that the sense of vision is prioritized over hearing. Furthermore, constructional parameters of meaning show how ears and eyes are perceived in MG language and culture. Eye is attributed the agent role in the constructions, while ear is the entity acted upon. Moreover, eyes are mainly perceived as reflections of different dimensions of the selfhood, while ears are perceived as containers. A broader polysemy thus emerges for the eye than for the ear.
Keywords: corpus-based study, usage pattern, construction, ear, eye, metaphor, metonymy, embodiment, polysemy, culture, Greek
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction and background
    • 1.1Metaphor and metonymy and their interaction in figurative language
    • 1.2Experiential basis of metaphor and metonymy and their interaction in figurative language
      • 1.2.1Body parts and chained metonymies
  • 2.Corpus studies and methodology
    • 2.1Methodology
  • 3.Meaning construction in usage patterns with body part terms
    • 3.1Metaphor-metonymy and their interaction in ear usage patterns
      • 3.1.1Constructional parameters of meaning in ear usage patterns
    • 3.2Metaphor-metonymy and their interaction in eye usage patterns
      • 3.2.1Constructional parameters of meaning in eye usage patterns
    • 3.3Overall discussion and comparison
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 8 December 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00113.tho
References (54)
References
Athanasiadou, A. (2014). Metaphors and metonymies for the (conceptualization and expression of the) state of no emotion in English and Greek. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 27 (1), 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A. (2002). Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within Cognitive Linguistics: An update. In R. Dirven & R. Porings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 207–277). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). The role of metonymy in meaning construction at discourse level. In G. Radden, K-M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 51–75). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Metonymic inferencing and second language acquisition. In J. Littlemore & C. Juchem-Grundmann (Eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics in second language learning and teaching. AILA Review, 23 1, 134–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 7–57). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B. (2015). Embodiment. In E. Dabrovska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 10–30). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A. (2007). Frames, Idealized Cognitive Models, and Domains. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens. (Eds), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 170–187). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4 (4), 335–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deignan, A., & Potter, L. (2004). A corpus study of metaphors and metonymies in English and Italian. Journal of Pragmatics, 36 1, 1231–1252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foolen, A. (2017). The hand in figurative thought and language. In A. Athanasiadou (Ed.). Studies in figurative thought and language (pp. 179–198). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (1999). Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world. In R. W. Jr. Gibbs, & G. J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 145–166). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goossens, L. (1995). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in figurative expressions for linguistic action. In L. Goossens, P. Pawels, B. Rudzka-Ostyn, A. M. Simon-Vandenbergen & J. Vanparys (Eds), By word of mouth: Metaphor, metonymy and linguistic action in a cognitive perspective (pp.159–174). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grady, J. (2007). Metaphor. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 188–213). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Granger, S., & Paquot, M. (2008). Disentangling the phraseological web. In S. Granger, & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: an interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 27–49). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2006). Keeping an eye on the data: Metonymies and their pattern. In A. Stefanowitch & S. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 123–151). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2007). Chained metonymies in lexicon and grammar. A cross – linguistic perspective on body part terms. In G. Radden, K. M. Köpke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 77–98). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kӧvecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kraska-Szlenk, I. (2014). Semantic extension of body part terms: Common patterns and their interpretation. Language Sciences, 44 1, 15–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Εd.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lindquist, H., & Levin, M. (2008). Foot and mouth: The phrasal patterns of two frequent nouns. In S. Granger & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 143–158). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J., & Taylor, J. (2014). Introduction. In J. Littlemore & J. Taylor (Εds.), The Bloomsbury companion to Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 1–26). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Marmaridou, S. (2006). On the conceptual, cultural and discursive motivation of Greek pain lexicalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 17 (3), 393–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). The relevance of embodiment to lexical and collocational meaning: The case of prosopo ‘face’ in Modern Greek. In A. Zouheir & N. Yu (Εds.), Embodiment via body parts: Studies from various languages and cultures (pp. 23–40). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mel΄čuk, I. (1998). Collocations and lexical functions. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications (pp. 23–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Niemeier, S. (2000). Straight from the heart – metonymic and metaphorical explorations. In A. Barcelona (Εd.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 196–213). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Oakley, T. (2007). Image schemas. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Εds), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. (pp. 214–235). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Panther, K. W., & Thornburg, L. (2007). Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Εds), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 236–263). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Radden, G. (2002). How metonymic are metaphors? In R. Dirven & R. Porings (Εds), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (pp. 407–434). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Molly married money: Reflections on conceptual metonymy. In O. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical and descriptive issues (pp. 161–182). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohrer, T. (2007). Embodiment and experientialism. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. (pp. 25–47). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 109–132). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, 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
Stefanowitsch, A. (2006). Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. In A. Stefanowitch & S. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 1–16). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Theodoropoulou, M. (2012). Metaphor-metonymies of joy and happiness in Greek. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 10 (1), 156–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Θώμου, Π. (2008). Η μεταφορά (metaphor) στην Ονοματική Φράση (ΕΠΙΘΕΤΟ + ΟΥΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΟ). ΑΡΙΑΔΝΗ 14 1, 273–291. [Thomou, P. (2008). Metaphor in the Noun Phrase (ADJECTIVE + NOUN). ARIADNE 14 1, 273–291] (in Greek).Google Scholar
(2010). Εκδοχές της μεταφοράς (metaphor) σε σχολικά βιβλία και η κατανόησή τους από μαθητές, Αριάδνη, 16 1, 217–238. [Thomou, P. (2010). Comprehension of options of Metaphor in Schoolbooks. ARIADNE, 16 1, 217–238] (in Greek).Google Scholar
Thomou, P. (2013). Verbal collocations in Modern Greek and English: Common patterns. GLOSSOLOGIA, 21 1, 19–38.Google Scholar
(2016). Metaphor and metonymy interaction patterns in Modern Greek. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 3 (2), 300–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Conceptual and lexical aspects influencing metaphor realization in Modern Greek. In T. Georgakopoulos, T.-S. Pavlidou, M. Pechlivanos, A. Alexiadou, J. Androutsopoulos, A. Kalokerinos, S. Spopeteas & K. Stathi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Greek Linguistics (pp. 993–1006). Edition Romiosini/CeMoG, Freie Universitat Berlin. ([URL])
(2019). Locatives and their metaphorical conceptualization in multi-word units retrieved from a corpus search. In M. Chondrogianni, S. Courtenage, G. Horrocks, A. Arvaniti & I. Tsimpli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Greek Linguistics (pp. 248–255). London: University of Westminster. ([URL])
(2020). Towards a constructional account of multi-word units in Modern Greek: a corpus-based study. In S. Markantonatou & A. Christofidou (Eds.), Multi-word expressions: Drawing on data from Modern Greek and other languages (pp. 305–331). Athens: Academy of Athens.Google Scholar
Βελούδης, Γ. (2005). Η σημασία πριν, κατά και μετά τη γλώσσα. Αθήνα: Κριτική. [Veloudis, G. (2005). Meaning in and beyond language. Athens: Kritiki] (in Greek)Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xioufis, T. (2017). The pattern of the metaphor within metonymy in the figurative language of romantic love in Modern Greek. In T.-S. Pavlidou, M. Pechlivanos, A. Alexiadou, J. Androutsopoulos, A. Kalokerinos, S. Spopeteas & K. Stathi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Greek Linguistics (pp. 1275–1287) Edition Romiosini/CeMoG, Freie Universitat Berlin.Google Scholar
Yu, N. (2004). The eyes for sight and mind. Journal of Pragmatics, 36 1, 663–686. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Metaphor from body and culture. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 247–261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar