Cognitive Semantics Quest for the Ultimate Source Domain

• Authors: Drogosz Anna Maria
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The paper is an attempt to answer the question asked in Cognitive Semantics: Which experiential domain should be considered to be more fundamental or “ultimate”: space, an object or a human being? It is argued that they represent three domains of behaviour identified by archaeologists (the technical domain, the domain of social relations, and the natural history domain), and consequently are equally ultimate. It is also argued that the ability to project knowledge from one domain to the other was the crucial stage in the development of metaphor and abstract thinking, and that this ability (called cognitive fluidity or conceptual integration) was exapted from the physical to abstract domain.

Keywords

EN

experiential domains; domains of behaviour; cognitive fluidity; abstract thinking; development of metaphor

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie
• Journal: Acta Neophilologica
• Year: 2023
• Volume: XXV/1
• Pages: 185-197

Contributors

author

Drogosz Anna Maria

• Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski

References

• Black, M. (1962), Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
• Brown, T.L. (2003), Making Truth: Metaphor in Science. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
• Casasanto, D. (2010), Space for Thinking. In: Evans, V./Chilton, P. (eds.), Language, Cognition and Space: The State of the Art and New Directions. London: Equinox Publishing: 453–478.
• Cienki, A. (1997), Some Properties and Groupings of Image Schemas. In: Verspoor, M./Lee, D./Sweetser, E. (eds.), Lexical and Syntactical Constructions and the Construction of Meaning. Amsterdam ‒ Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 3–15.
• Drogosz, A. (2010), EXISTENCE IS LIFE: Metaphors of Language that Ecolinguistics Lives by. In: Puppel, S./Bogusławska-Tafelska, M. New Pathways in Linguistics. Olsztyn: Katedra Filologii Angielskiej: 59–74.
• Drogosz, A. (2019), A Cognitive Semantics Approach to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. San Diego: AE Academic Publishers.
• Drogosz, A. (forthcoming), A Cognitive Semantics Analysis of David Goggins’ Idea of “Transforming” Mindset. Prace Językoznawcze.
• Dunbar, R.I.M. (1993), Coevolution of Neocortical Size, Group Size and Language in Humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16: 681–735.
• Epley N./Schroeder, J./Waytz, A. (2013), Motivated Mind Perception: Treating Pets as People and People as Animals. In: Gervais S.J. (ed.), Objectification and (De)Humanization. New York: Springer: 127–152.
• Evans, V. (2013), Language and Time: A Cognitive Linguistics Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Evans, V./Green M. (2006), Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Fauconnier, G./Turner, M. (2002), The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
• Gibbs, R.W. (1996), Why Many Concepts Are Metaphorical. Cognition 61: 309–319.
• Gould, S./Vrba, E. (1982), Exaptation – a Missing Term in the Science of Form. Paleobiology 8: 4–15.
• Guthrie, S.E. (1993), Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion. New York – Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hesse, M.B. (1970 [1963]), Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Johnson, M. (1987), The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Knowles, M./Moon, R. (2005), Introducing Metaphor. London: Routledge.
• Kövecses, Z. (2002), Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. New York – Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Krzeszowski, T. (1997), Angels and Devils in Hell. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Energeia.
• Kuhn, T.S. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago – London: University of Chicago Press.
• Lakoff, G. (1993), The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In: Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 202–251.
• Lakoff, G./Johnson, M. (1980), Metaphors We Live by. Chicago – London: University of Chicago Press.
• Lakoff, G. (1987), Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Lakoff, G./Johnson, M. (1999), Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
• Lakoff, G./Núñez, R.E. (2000), Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being. New York: Basic Books.
• Langacker, R.W. (2008), Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Macedo, F. (2015), Space as Metaphor: The Use of Spatial Metaphors in Music and Music Writing. Signata 6: 215–230.
• MacKay, D.G. (1986), Prototypicality among Metaphors: On the Relative Frequency of Personification and Spatial Metaphors in Literature Written for Children Versus Adults. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 1/2: 87–107.
• Mithen, S. (1998) [1996]), The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art and Science. London – New York: Thames and Hudson.
• Pinker, S. (1997), How the Mind Works. New York: Norton.
• Radden, G. (2005), The Metaphor TIME AS SPACE across Languages. In: Górska, E./Radden, G. (eds.), Metonymy – Metaphor – Collage. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego: 99–120.
• Radden, G. (2011), Spatial Time in the West and the East. In: Brdar, M./Omazic, M. et al. (eds.), Space and Time in Language. Frankfurt: Peter Lang: 1–40.
• Rohrer, T. (2007), Embodiment and Experientialism. In: Geeraetes, D./Cuyckens, H. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press: 26–47.
• Rummelhart, D. (1993), Some Problems with the Notion of Literal Meanings. In: Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 71–82.
• Santibañez, F. (2002), The OBJECT Image-schema and Other Dependent Schemas. Atlantis XXIV/2: 183–201.
• Szwedek, A. (2009a), Ontogenetic and Phylogenetic Explanations of Metaphorization. In: Wysocka, M. (ed.), On Language Structure, Acquisition and Teaching. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego: 202–210.
• Szwedek, A. (2009b), Conceptualization of Space and Time. In: Łobacz, P./Nowak, P./Zabrocki, W. (eds.), Language, Science and Culture. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM: 317–333.
• Szwedek, A. (2011), The Ultimate Source Domain. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9/2: 341–366.
• Szwedek, A. (2014), The Nature of Domains and Relationships between Them in Metaphorization. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 12/2: 342–374.
• Tuggy, D. (2007), Schematicity. In: Geeraetes, D./Cuyckens, H. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press: 82–116.
• Ungerer, F./Schmid, H.-J. (1996), An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London – New York: Longman.
• Wickman, S.A./Daniels, M.H. et al. (1999), A “Primer” in Conceptual Metaphor for Counselors. Journal of Counseling and Development 44: 389–394.
• Wilson, M. (2002), Six Views of Embodied Cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9/4: 625–636.
• Zawisławska, M. (2011), Metafora w języku nauki: na przykładzie nauk przyrodniczych. Warszawa: Wydział Polonistyki.
• Zbikowski, L.M. (2008), Metaphor and Music. In: Gibbs, R.W. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 502–524.

Identifiers

DOI

10.31648/an.8768