Article published In:
Expressing and Describing SurpriseEdited by Agnès Celle and Laure Lansari
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13:2] 2015
► pp. 270–290
Edited by Agnès Celle and Laure Lansari
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13:2] 2015
► pp. 270–290
Surprise as a conceptual category
In this paper, I examine the concept of surprise from a cognitive linguistic perspective. As previous studies indicate, surprise is a not-quite-prototypical emotion category. My focus will be on the structure and content of surprise as an emotion category, as this can be revealed on the basis of the language speakers of English use to talk about it. As regards methodology, I will follow my earlier work and employ a “lexical approach” to emotion concepts (see, e.g., Kövecses, 1986, 1990, 2000) to explore the language-based folk model of surprise in English. I will investigate the conceptual metaphors and metonymies associated with surprise and will propose a cognitive model for the emotion. It is hoped that this methodology enables us to see why surprise is not a prototypical emotion concept on a par with, for example, anger or fear.
References (43)
Athanasiadou, A., & Tabakowska, E. (Eds.). (1998). Speaking of emotions: Conceptualization and expression. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 
Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum.
Celle, A., & Lansari, L. (2014). ‘I’m surprised’/’Are you surprised?’: Surprise as an argumentation tool in verbal interaction. In P. Blumenthal, I. Novakova, & D. Siepmann (Eds.), Les émotions dans le discours/Emotions in discourse (pp. 267–279). Bern/Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Penguin.
Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W.V. (1975). Unmasking the face. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ekman, P., Levenson, R.W., & Friesen, W.V. (1983). Autonomic nervous system activity distinguishes among emotions. Science, 2211, 1208–1210.
Fontaine, J.J.R., Scherer, K.R., & Soriano, C. (Eds.). (2013). Components of emotional meaning: A sourcebook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frijda, N.H. (1986). Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R.W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
. (1999). Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world In R.W. Gibbs & G.J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the 5th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (pp. 145–166). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R.W., & Colston, H. (2012). Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Goddard, C. (this volume). The complex, language-specific semantics of “surprise”.
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in the expression of linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 323–340.
Handl, S., & Schmid, H.-J. (Eds.). (2011). Windows to the mind: Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual blending. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Holland, D., & Quinn, N. (Eds.). (1987). Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (1986). Metaphors of anger, pride, and love. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. (1990). Emotion concepts. Berlin/New York: Springer Verlag.
. (2000). Metaphor and emotion. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
. (2008). Metaphor and emotion. In R.W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 380–396). Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction, 2nd edition. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
. (2011). Methodological issues in conceptual metaphor theory. In S. Handl & H.-J. Schmid (Eds.), Windows to the mind: Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual blending (pp. 23–39). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
. (2015). Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1987). The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 195–221). Cambridge/ New York: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R. (1987). Cognitive grammar. Vol. 11. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
LeDoux, J. (1996). The emotional brain. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Lutz, C.A. (1988). Unnatural emotions: Everyday sentiments on a Micronesian atoll and their challenge to western theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Manstead, A.S.R., Frijda, N., & Fischer, A. (Eds.). (2004). Feelings and emotions: The Amsterdam Symposium. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Niemeier, S., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). (1997). The language of emotions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Palmer, G., & Occhi, D. (Eds.). (1999). Languages of sentiment: Cultural constructions of emotional substrates. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39.
Quinn, N. (Ed.). (2005). Finding culture in talk: A collection of methods. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Russel, J.A., Fernández-Dols, J.M., Manstead, A.S.R., & Wellenkamp, J.C. (Eds.). (1995). Everyday conceptions of emotion. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Soriano, C. (2005). The conceptualization of anger in English and Spanish: A cognitive approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
Soriano, C., Fontaine, J., & Scherer, K. (this voume). Surprise in the GRID.
Stefanowitsch, A. (2006). Words and their metaphors. In A. Stefanowitsch & S.T. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 64–105). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wilson, P. (Ed.). (2012). Dynamicity in emotion concepts. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Yu, N. (1998). The contemporary theory of metaphor. A perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cited by (38)
Cited by 38 other publications
Kövecses, Zoltán, Réka Benczes, Anna Rommel & Veronika Szelid
2024. Universality versus variation in the conceptualization of anger: A question of methodology. Russian Journal of Linguistics 28:1 ► pp. 55 ff. 
McKeown, Jamie
2024. A contrastive investigation of the performative and descriptive use of surprise frames in judicial opinions of the HKSAR. Journal of Pragmatics 232 ► pp. 41 ff.
Menete, Sérgio N. & Guiying Jiang
Menete, Sérgio N. & Guiying Jiang
2024. Another member out of the family: the description of manner of gait in Changana verbs of motion. Folia Linguistica 58:2 ► pp. 401 ff.
Vidal Noguera, Carmen & Irini Mavrou
2024. ‘A surprise I will never forget’: How do adolescent Spanish-German heritage speakers express the emotion of surprise in both their heritage language and the societal language?. International Journal of Bilingualism
Cifuentes Honrubia, José Luis
2023.
(No) faltaba/faltaría más
. In Verb and Context [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 34], ► pp. 99 ff.
Csillag, Andrea
2023. Metaphorical Meanings of Some Prepositions in English Expressions of Sadness. Romanian Journal of English Studies 20:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Julich-Warpakowski, Nina & Paula Pérez-Sobrino
2023.
M. Bolognesi, M. Brdar, & K. Despot (eds.) (2019). Metaphor and metonymy in the digital age. Theory and methods for building repositories of figurative language. John Benjamins (Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication, 8).. Language and Cognition 15:3 ► pp. 622 ff.
Li, Jinyan & Zi Ouyang
2023. Review of Yu (2022): Moral Metaphor System: A Conceptual Metaphor Approach. Journal of Language and Politics 22:6 ► pp. 952 ff.
Soriano, Cristina & Javier Valenzuela
Wang, Qian & Guangwei Hu
2022. What surprises, interests and confuses researchers? A frame-based analysis of knowledge emotion markers in research articles. Lingua 279 ► pp. 103426 ff.
Bosman, Nerina & Elsabé Taljard
2021. A Cross-Linguistic Study of BLOOD Metaphors in Afrikaans and Northern Sotho. Language Matters 52:1 ► pp. 3 ff.
Chen, Lang & Guangwei Hu
2020. Mediating Knowledge through Expressing Surprises: A Frame-based Analysis of Surprise Markers in Research Articles across Disciplines and Research Paradigms. Discourse Processes 57:8 ► pp. 659 ff.
Piata, Anna
Piata, Anna
2022. Stylistic humor across modalities. In The Pragmatics of Internet Memes [Benjamins Current Topics, 120], ► pp. 36 ff.
Yu, Ning
2020. Linguistic embodiment in linguistic experience. In Body Part Terms in Conceptualization and Language Usage [Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts, 12], ► pp. 11 ff.
Bolognesi, Marianna & Kristina Š. Despot
2019. Fantastic metaphors and where to find them. In Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age [Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication, 8], ► pp. 1 ff.
Hu, Guangwei & Lang Chen
2019. “To our great surprise …”: A frame-based analysis of surprise markers in research articles. Journal of Pragmatics 143 ► pp. 156 ff.
Kövecses, Zoltán, Laura Ambrus, Dániel Hegedűs, Ren Imai & Anna Sobczak
2019. The lexical vs. corpus-based method in the study of metaphors. In Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age [Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication, 8], ► pp. 149 ff.
Lemghari, El Mustapha
2019. A metaphor-based account of semantic relations among proverbs. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 6:1 ► pp. 158 ff.
Lemghari, El Mustapha
2022. On the Role of Source and Target Words’ Meanings in Metaphorical Conceptualizations. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 67:1 ► pp. 73 ff.
Yu, Ning & Jie Huang
2019. Primary Metaphors across Languages: Difficulty as Weight and Solidity. Metaphor and Symbol 34:2 ► pp. 111 ff.
Shea, Jordan Edward, Cecilia Ovesdotter Alm & Reynold Bailey
2018. 2018 IEEE Western New York Image and Signal Processing Workshop (WNYISPW), ► pp. 1 ff.
Kövecses, Zoltán
2017. Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics 28:2 ► pp. 321 ff.
Kövecses, Zoltán
2019. Perception and metaphor. In Perception Metaphors [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research, 19], ► pp. 327 ff.
Kövecses, Zoltán
2020. Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory,
Kövecses, Zoltán
2020. A multi-level view of metaphor and some of its advantages. In Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language [Figurative Thought and Language, 9], ► pp. 71 ff.
[no author supplied]
2020. The Abstract Understood Figuratively, the Concrete Understood Literally, but the Concrete Understood Figuratively?. In Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory, ► pp. 22 ff.
[no author supplied]
2020. Conceptual or Contextual?. In Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory, ► pp. 93 ff.
[no author supplied]
2020. References. In Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory, ► pp. 186 ff.
[no author supplied]
2020. A Brief Outline of “Standard” Conceptual Metaphor Theory and Some Outstanding Issues. In Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory, ► pp. 1 ff.
[no author supplied]
2020. Direct or Indirect Emergence?. In Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory, ► pp. 34 ff.
[no author supplied]
2020. Offline or Online?. In Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory, ► pp. 117 ff.
[no author supplied]
2020. Index. In Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory, ► pp. 194 ff.
[no author supplied]
2020. Domains, Schemas, Frames, or Spaces?. In Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory, ► pp. 50 ff.
[no author supplied]
2020. The Shape of the Extended View of CMT. In Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory, ► pp. 150 ff.
[no author supplied]
2020. By Way of Conclusion: Responses to the Five Questions. In Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory, ► pp. 169 ff.
[no author supplied]
2020. Preface. In Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory, ► pp. xi ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 december 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.