Expresii Idiomatice Ce Aparțin Domeniului Conceptual AL Mâinii ȘI Brațului ÎN Limbile Română ȘI Engleză
UNIVERSITATEA DIN CRAIOVA
FACULTATEA DE LITERE
MASTER: STUDII DE LIMBĂ SI LITERATURI
ANGLO-AMERICANE
SPECIALIZAREA: LIMBA ENGLEZĂ
LUCRARE DE DISERTAȚIE
Coordonator științific:
Lect.univ.dr. Ana-Maria Trantescu
Absolvent:
Bianca Alexandra Surugiu
-IULIE-
2016
UNIVERSITATEA DIN CRAIOVA
FACULTATEA DE LITERE
MASTER: STUDII DE LIMBĂ SI LITERATURI
ANGLO-AMERICANE
SPECIALIZAREA: LIMBA ENGLEZĂ
“Hand and Arm Idioms in English and Romanian”
“EXPRESII IDIOMATICE CE APARȚIN DOMENIULUI CONCEPTUAL AL MÂINII ȘI BRAȚULUI ÎN LIMBILE ROMÂNĂ ȘI ENGLEZĂ”
Coordonator științific:
Lect.univ.dr. Ana-Maria Trantescu
Absolvent:
Bianca Alexandra Surugiu
-IULIE-
2016
CONTENT
ABSTRACT…………………………………………….………………….……1
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………….……………..….2
CHAPTER 1. IDIOMS AND IDIOMATICITY
Idioms and Idiomaticity……………………………………..…..……..…5
Traditional perspective on idioms… ………………………..……..……10
The importance of Metaphor and Metonymy in our thinking……………12
CHAPTER 2. COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND IDIOMS
2.1 Cognitive linguistics. Main principles…………………………………….…14
2.2 Conceptual structures in cognitive linguistics…………………….…………22
2.3 Cognitive approach to idioms……………………………………………….28
CHAPTER 3. HAND AND ARM IDIOMS IN ENGLISH AND ROMANIAN
3.1 Hand Idioms in English and Romanian………………………………………32
3.2 Arm Idioms in English and Romanian…………………………………..…40
CONCLUSIONS……………………………………………………………….43
SUMMARY………………………………………………………………………45
BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………….47
ABSTRACT
The study of idioms is a challenging phenomenon and after the 1960s, it received its well deserved attention, research focusing both on its form and meaning. The process of studying idioms is considered a controversial aspect of modern linguistics. The meaning of many idioms can be derived from its constituent parts, thus resulting their partially predictable character, individual words having an impact on the overall meaning. Figurative devices such as metonymies, hyperbole or metaphor, are contained by idioms. The meaning of most idioms containing “hand” and “arm” is determined by the cognitive frame and conventional knowledge. In this paper, we try to show that sometimes, the meaning of an idiom can be derived from its constituent parts, especially those made up of body parts, and also to portray that idioms are motivated by conventional knowledge, conceptual metaphor and conceptual metonymy.
When it comes to idioms containing body parts, speakers of English and Romanian, even if these two languages are not related, share the same figurative meaning and underlying conceptual strategies. This finding is based on the likelihood of body metaphors in both languages. The similarities between the two languages are determined by the embodied experience. Most generic-level metaphors and metonymies are common to English and Romanian and this is determined by the universal nature of embodiment and none the less by the common experiential bases employed. The idioms and their Romanian equivalents are analysed with the help of the cognitive linguistic method which was proposed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980), Lakoff (1987) and Kövecses (2002).
The purpose of this work is to analyse the similarities and differences in the metaphorical and metonymical conceptualization of the human body in English and Romanian.
It is difficult to study conceptual motivation because of its challenging issues such as universality and variation. The findings provided by this work will be useful for studies related to conceptualization and cognitive semantics.
INTRODUCTION
In the following work, Romanian and English idioms consisting of “hand” and “arm” will be analysed in order to demonstrate that the conceptual framework can be used to portray their figurative meanings. According to this framework, throughout our lives, we gather information and our language reflects our knowledge of the world. It also claims that our whole thinking is metaphorical. If it has the characteristic previously mentioned, then speakers of both English and Romanian share conceptual metaphors and metonymies, this also being caused by the fact that people structure thoughts with the help of concepts.
“Idioms which make use of parts of the human body are more predictable than other idioms, simply because as human beings, we are completely familiar with our perception of the shape, size and functions of individual parts of our own bodies, because we experience them every day”.(Bilkova 2000:8)
The aim of our dissertation is to portray the similarities and differences existing both in English and Romanian idioms containing the words “hand” and “arm”, when we conceptualise them. These similarities and differences can be also found at the lexical level of the idiomatic expressions in both languages. Also, the conceptual mechanisms needed to create a coherent structure of the meanings of the idiomatic expressions in the targeted language will be investigated.
The objectives of this work are the following: to compare the conceptual motivation of Romanian and English idioms containing body parts, to provide the main characteristics of idioms and to present the classification realized by the most important researchers in the field, to analyse from a theoretical point of view the nature of the conceptual mechanisms and metonymies presented and finally to compare the idioms in Romanian and English mentioned in this work based on the similarities and differences resulted from conventional knowledge.
An important factor in choosing the theme “Hand and Arm idioms in English and Romanian” is the fact that the human body is frequently used and has an extremely important part in everyday communication.
This dissertation is structured into three chapters, each of them focusing on an important feature of idiomatic expressions.
In the first chapter entitled “Idioms and Idiomaticity”, the theoretical framework of idioms will be presented, as well as the main characteristics and finally the classifications and definitions provided by the most renewed researchers. Also, the traditional perspective on idioms will be briefly presented due to the fact that it focuses on the arbitrary character of idiomatic meaning and nevertheless on syntactic frozenness. Modern linguists opposed this character and their ideas will be later presented in the second chapter. These linguists have also contradicted the fact according to which there is an unpredictable connection between an idiom and its meaning. Idioms are considered in the traditional view to be structures consisting of at least two words. In the last subchapter, we focus on the importance of metaphor and metonymy in our thinking based on the fact that idioms are determined by our conventional knowledge. Idioms are embedded in our conceptual systems and as a result have a conceptual nature, also being specific ways of expressing ideas and concepts.
In the second chapter entitled “Cognitive linguistics and idioms”, the main principles of cognitive linguistics will be presented, the focus being on one of its branches called “cognitive semantics”, and its most important theories related to idiomatic expressions. The second sub-chapter focuses on the conceptual structures encountered in cognitive linguistics: conceptual metaphor and conceptual metonymy. “Conceptual mechanisms such as conceptual metaphor and metonymy, used in the conceptualization of situations do not only motivate but also constrain the possibilities of conceptualization. Alternative conceptualization reflected by language is therefore constrained to a certain extent.”(Csabi 2004:12) here, the role of conceptual metaphors is discussed since they continue mental models. A distinction should be made between conceptual and linguistic metaphor, according to which, the conceptual metaphors belong to the level of thought, while the linguistic ones are concrete realizations in language of conceptual metaphors. Also, the conceptual metonymies and their connection with conceptual metaphors will be presented.
In the last chapter, we use the theoretical framework provided by cognitive linguistics to interpret idiomatic expressions both in English and Romanian, containing the following words “hand” and “arm”. It also provides the conventional images needed to connect the literal meaning of an idiom to its figurative one. We use our hands and implicitly our arm in everyday experiences. The metaphors and metonymies used in our thesis are grounded in our cognitive system and sustain the conventional knowledge about the hand and the arm.
In conclusion, this dissertation focuses on analyzing idioms containing the following body parts “hand” and “arm” based on the theoretical framework provided by cognitive linguistics in order to demonstrate that speakers of two non-related languages, Romanian and English make use of general images and conventional knowledge when interpreting idioms consisting of body parts.
CHAPTER 1 IDIOMS AND IDIOMATICITY
1.1 Idioms and Idiomaticity
Until the 1960s, the study of English idioms has been neglected, but after that period they have received their well deserved attention. Research has been made regarding both their meaning and forms. The most difficult area of lexicology encapsulates both idioms and phraseological units. Traditional and well-tested procedures do not apply for phraseology and idioms, due to the fact that they have been created to be applied for regular language.
It is very difficult to provide an accurate definition for the idiom since it is a complex process. Bilkova defines it as “a conventionalized multiword expression whose units are mostly semantically ambiguous, i.e individual units of an idiom may have several meanings” (2000:9). This happens in the case of the idiom “to spill the beans”, where “beans” stands for vegetables”. She has further suggested that if an expression has been used many times by a large number of speakers, then it becomes “conventionalized” losing its metaphorical characteristics.
The meaning of many idioms can be derived from its constituent parts, thus resulting their partial predictable character. Individual words have an impact on the overall meaning. Furthermore, figurative devices such as metonymies, hyperbole or metaphor are contained by idioms. The conceptual devices motivate the literal and overall meaning of an idiom, the relationship between the two types of meaning being arbitrary.
Idioms can suffer transformations even though in many cases, their structure is transformationally defective. We can change the tense of a verb, as in the case of “kick the bucket”, resulting “kicked the bucket”, but we cannot form a passive construction.
The Logman Dictionary of English Idioms and the Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English include proverbs, sayings, restricted collocations, similes and also open collocations.
In his book entitled Idiom structures in English, Adam Makkai provides the criteria which he used in order to characterize idioms: 1.at least two words are needed in order to realize an idiom, 2. The component parts of an idiom are devoided of their usual meaning this making it impossible to predict the meaning of an idiom, 3. Due to the fact that the constituent parts can be polysemous, a large number of idioms can be misinterpreted, thus leading to their disinformative character, and criteria 4, in which idioms are conventionalized expressions thus resulting their institutionalized nature.
His first point is sustained by the majority of specialists due to the fact that a lexical unit must have at least two lexemes in order to be considered an idiomatic one.
The next criterion was contradicted by many since some idioms have a more transparent nature than others. This happens in the case of the expression “to have a good head on one’s shoulders”, which is idiomatic, “head” standing for intelligence. People have certain concepts in their minds and can associate the word “head” with intelligence due to their everyday experience and as such, they can partially understand and idiom due to its constituent parts. There is a high percentage of predictability on behalf of people, when they are dealing with idioms which contain body parts.
The third point is focused on the role that context has in correctly interpreting idioms. Sometimes idioms cannot be clearly understood without the presence of the context. In order to correctly interpret the literal language, context is essential. If the listener is outside his natural context, it is possible for him to misinterpret a lexical expression. Cacciari and Tabossi support his third point, who after several experiments concluded that “there is only one processing of an idiomatic string-it is literal until the key word is found” (1988:678-9). Idioms are first processed literally with the help of the surrounding context.
His final point is partially sustained because certain idioms are more frequently used, thus becoming conventionalized. This has lead to their partially syntactically frozen character. However, his opinion that the meaning of an idiom cannot be predicted based on its constituent parts, is invalid. The process of predictability happens mainly when the idioms contain a body part world.
According to Makkai, there are two types of idioms: encoding and decoding. Decoding idioms are not very predictable, while the encoding ones determine the speaker to communicate in a certain conventional way, at the same time maintaining a transparent interpretation. “Idioms of decoding are classified as lexemic and sememic” (Makkai 1972:122). He considers that lexemic idioms include: phrasal verbs, tournure idioms (which have at least three lexemes, and the obligatory “it” is placed between the verb and adverb, position that cannot be changed), phrasal compound idioms, irreversible binomial idioms (consist of two elements, whose order cannot be changed) and finally pseudo-idioms (in which an element is fossilized and lacks meaning when it occurs by itself).
In his article Problems in the Analysis of Idioms, Weinreich tried to establish the criteria needed in order to characterize idioms. “Weinreich accepts as idioms only multiword expressions which have literal counterparts”(Bilkova 2000:13). He disqualifies idioms which do not contain this criterion and considers them to be ill formed. Furthermore, he regards an idiom as being “a phraseological unit that involved at least two polysemous constituents and in which there is a reciprocal contextual selection of subsenses”(1964:226).
Idioms are special due to their unique nature, encapsulating people’s ideas, feelings and impressions. These expressions are apt and very precise. Compared to literal language, idioms are richer in terms of semantic features and structure. Palmer also sustained Weinreich’s idea that idioms have literal counterparts. He argues that the meaning of the resulting combination is not connected to that of the individual words. The resulting meaning is opaque. Weinreich further sustains that arbitrariness marks the relationship between idioms and their literary counterparts. This relationship is also ad-hoc. This characteristic presented by Weinreich cannot be sustained because the figurative meanings of idioms are partially determined by the way in which people conceptualise the world and not arbitrary.
Due to the fact that idioms are unique in point of their semantics, Weinreich’s opinions that idioms must have literal counterparts in valid in many cases.
The arbitrary character of the relationship between idioms and their literal counterparts is not reliable taking into consideration the fact that people use language in order to reflect the way in which they conceptualise the world.
Frantisek Eermak distinguishes between phraseme and idioms in his book entitled Idiomatics and Phraseology of Chech. He considered that idioms are less transparent that phrasemes. Despite this difference, they are both connected to the meaning and form of the phraseological unit. Eermak used the following criteria in order to define idioms: pragmatic fixity (phraseological units cannot be replaced by other elements in a context), conventionality, syntagmatic fixity (elements of idiomatic units are able to combine only with specifiv elements), idiomaticity (some transformations are restricted formally, semantically and functionally), the base structure can be transformed in a number of ways and finally idioms are transformationally anomalous, thus resulting combinations which are not the result of patterns. “From the formal point of view, this means that the combinatory abilities of idioms are not identical with the combinatory abilities of regular language”(Bilkva 2000:15).
Eermak considers that an idiom is the result of combining at least two forms. It is characterized by a denotative and an internal constituational function. Idioms are defined through the integral constituational function. Through context, the speaker infers meaning and interprets correctly and idiom. Eermak is one of the first linguists to emphasise the role of context while others have focused on analyzing idioms separately from their environment. He suggests that people in order to understand an idiom, rely on the conceptual representation that they have in their minds. Idioms are a reflection of the way in which people conceptualise the world and not just products of language.
Eermak’s point that the meaning of an idiom cannot be derived from its individual counterparts is not valid, as we have mentioned before.
The opinions of Makkai, Weinreich and Eermak point out that when they studied idioms, their main focus was on form. In contrast, Cowie et all (1975) and Fernando (1996) have focused on the language use.
Cowie et al, suggested in the two volumes of Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English that idiomaticity is “a question of meaning”(Bilkova 2000:17). Idiomaticity is created with the help of grammar and meaning. They consider an expression to be idiomatic, if it can be replaced by a single word. They also sustain that compositeness and semantic unity are the main features needed to characterize idioms. Cowie at all support the idea that the overall meaning of an idiom “cannot be predicted from the meaning of its constituent parts”(Bilkova 2000:17).
Chitra Fernando in her book Idioms and Idiomaticity (1996), regards idioms as being “invisible units whose components cannot be varied, or varied only within definable limits and not usually recombinable”(1996:30). Idioms have been largely neglected despite the fact that they have been pervasive in everyday language.
Taking into account the nation on invariability and Halliday’s functions of language, Fernando offers the following classification of idiomatic expressions: pure-idioms (which are conventionalized and the non literal meaning is imposed on the idiom as a whole: spill the beans), semi-literal idioms (one or more literal constituents in which at least one has a non-literal substance: foot the bill) and literal idioms (which are invariant or have restricted variation on foot). Fernando took into consideration the semantic aspect of idioms, when she formulated the definition of idioms. The most defining features of idioms are: their non-literalness, their semantic opacity, the idiom’s lexical fixity and their semantic unity.
She further classified the idioms into three categories: ideational, interpersonal and relational. Ideational idioms focus on the message content and include events (to have blood on one’s hands), people and things (a fat cat), emotions ( to lose one’s heart), or characterize the message as being specific (the question is) or finally non-specific (blah blah blah). Interpersonal ones can be interactional, including greetings, agreement, can characterize the message as being sincere, uncertain, or display calls for brevity (get to the point). Finally, relational idioms ensure the cohesion of the discourse and can be integrative (on one hand) or sequence information in time and space (in the first place, one day).
Cacciari divided idioms according to their shiftiness from opacity to transparency. They can be: totally opaque idioms, retrospectively transparent, directly transparent and figuratively transparent. When the speaker knows the meaning of an idiom or remembers the context which determined its apparition, the resulting idiom is called retrospectively transparent. By using a metaphorical mapping, directly transparent idioms are created. When an idiom is made up of another one, or has elements contained by several other idioms, the result is a figuratively transparent idiom.
Each researcher took into consideration a different set of criteria when they came up with a classification of idioms, reflecting their own opinions on the matter. Each one is right, while at the same time having some points contradicted by the others. The study of idioms is a complex and difficult process involving several domains of activity.
1.2 Traditional perspective on idioms
Idiomaticity raises many controversies in linguistics while at the same time, not many studies have been conducted regarding this domain, remaining a neglected and difficult part of modern linguistics. Traditional procedures, methodological approaches and criteria which have been created to study regular language cannot be applied in the case of idiomaticity and phraseology. A characteristic feature of phraseology is the fact that it is irregular. Idioms and idiomaticity should be analysed from the semantic, formal and functional perspective, in order for the result to be a proper one, however complex this process might be. Several assumptions have been determined from the meanings of the constituent parts. Idioms have lost their metaphorical character in time and are now considered to be dead metaphors in the mental lexicon.
The following definition of an idiom is provided by Logman Idioms Dictionary (2007): “a sequence of words which has a different meaning as a group from the meaning it would have if you understand each word separately”. Due to the fact that the meaning of the constituent parts is different from the overall meaning, idioms are considered to be non-compositional, and are said to be functioning as single lexical entities. Brolinger suggests that idioms are “grasps of words with set meanings that cannot be calculated by adding up the separable meanings of the parts”(1975:100).
An idiom is considered to be a conventionalized multiword expression. This expression contains units which are mainly semantically ambiguous and it has become conventionalized due to the fact that speakers have used it frequently in time, thus losing its specific metaphorical features.
Idiomatic meanings are said to be arbitrary deposited in the mental lexicon. “Thus, the understanding of idioms is seen to be available through the retrieval of their fixed meanings-via arbitrary links between form and meaning-from the lexicon, for instance”(Weinreich 1969:20). In the case of specific idioms, their figurative meanings are traditionally stored in the lexicon, the same thing happening to the meaning of words.
In his article Problems in the Analysis of Idioms, Wienreich tries to establish the basic criteria needed in order to formulate the characteristic features of idioms. In his opinion, only multiword expressions with literal counterparts can be idioms.
The idiomatic meaning of an idiom is destroyed when the syntactic composition is changed. This can be observed in the case of the example “kick the bucket”. If we say “the bucket was kicked by Mike”, the overall meaning is not the same as in the figurative meaning in the original sentence “Mike kicked the bucket”. “Syntactic unproductiveness or frozenness is seen as a determining factor of idioms”(Fraser 1970:35). Fraser further suggests that there is a frozen hierarchy in which at the lower level there are expressions which can be grammatically transformed without having their idiomatic meaning lost to higher levels where idioms cannot undergo transformations.
The loss of figurative meaning may also be determined by changing the word order. The idiomatic meaning in “she held her tongue” is not the same as in “her tongue was held”. However, certain idioms allow changes in word order, especially phrasal verbs. Also the tense and aspect can be modified.
The traditional view of idioms focuses on the arbitrary character of idiomatic meaning and nevertheless on syntactic frozenness. However, it has limited propositions and as a result “cannot account for several other problems”(Bilkova 2000:21). One of the problems is caused by the impossibility to present the metaphorical schemes of thought elaborated by contemporary speakers. “Consequently the traditional view cannot explain why so many idioms make sense to speakers with their figurative meanings”(Gibbs 1994:50). In addition, due to the arbitrary character and the unpredictable connection between idiom and its meaning, the traditional view cannot deal with idioms “that can refer to a single concept and mean almost the same thing”(Gibbs 1990:51).
While metaphors are seen as creative, capable of resisting paraphrases, idioms are considered “hackneyed phrases that are alike to literal phrases concerning their meaning”(Bilkova 2000:21).
1.3 The importance of Metaphor and Metonymy in our thinking
Linguists have different ideas regarding the uses of metaphor and metonymy. While some consider that they are an extension to the literal language, others suggest that should be used in a more specialized context, in poems, advertisements or even in journalism. In time, they have been studied separately thus violating the established rules of language. At the same time they provide an interesting substitute from regular discourse. Halliday provides the following definition for a metaphor: “a word is used for something resembling that which it usually refers to; for example food… poured in, A flood of protesters poured in following the announcement- a large quantity came in. if the fact of resemblance is explicitly signaled by a word such as “like”, as in protesters came in like a flood, this is considered to be not a metaphor, but a simile”(1985:319). He also said that a metonymy is “A word used for something related to which it usually refers to; for example eye…in keep your eye on the ball, (gaze)(1985:319).
When an entity is referred to another by means of resemblance, the resulting expression is called a metaphor. In the case of metonymy, special, temporal or casual contiguity is used in order for an entity to refer to another one. Metonymy has a subclass called synecdoche, in which by means of referring to a salient part, the reference to the whole is created.
In his publication Women, Fire and Dangerous Things (1987), Lakoff argues that “metaphor permeates language to the extent that much of our thinking is metaphorical”(1987:50). We use our sensory perceptions in order to conceptualise the world we live in. we even use metaphor to convey abstract things.
Cognitive linguistics considers metonymy to be a device “which is anchored in the possibility of establishing connections between entities which co-occur in a given conceptual structure”(Bilkova 2000:28). Furthermore, it considers that abstract concepts can be conceptualized thus resulting more concrete ones by means of a metaphor.
As Lakoff argues, some image schemas metaphorically structure certain areas of experience. This happens in the case of containment, which is an image schema of a container “with its inside and outside in three dimensional space”(Lakoff :1987:3000). Emotions are also conceptualized as containers, as well as forms of language, while life is conceptualized as a journey. In the case of the human body, the front-back orientation is applied. The front represents the direction in which people normally move, while the back represents the past. Also, the front can stand for the future.
The way in which we conceptualise everyday body experiences determines the apparition of the majority of image schemas. This also determines the creation of metaphorical extensions.
The general meaning of an idiom is determined by the target domain of the conceptual metaphor. In the example “to spit fire”, fire is equated to the domain anger, thus resulting the conceptual metaphor ANGER IS FIRE. Croft also agrees with this idea and suggests that “domains play a central role in the definition of a metaphor as a mapping of conceptual structure from one domain to another”(1993:335).
The component parts of certain idioms have an ambiguous meaning thus leading to “lexical ambiguities” as in the case of “pick up/take up the glove”.
Kövecses and Szabo suggest that the meaning of idioms depends on: the source-target relationship, the mappings between source and target, the particular knowledge structures and the cognitive devices.
In order to interpret correctly the idiomatic expression “to kick the bucket”, our knowledge of the world does not help in this case, because we do not know the origin of the idiom to conceptualise it, and cannot associate it with an everyday experience thus being difficult for us to determine the source and target domains. This situation highlightens a weak point in the cognitive theory.
Many cross-cultural similarities can be found due to the fact that idioms are based on our experiences of the world. However, minor differences may also appear. “This also brings us to the cognitive linguists’ persuasive argument that language is actually partially motivated by the conceptual framework we have in our minds”(Bilkova 2000:30).
Groossens analysed a number of idioms to see if metaphor and metonymy can be combined, this resulting in metaphtonymy. Metonymy can be at the root of metaphor “when the donor domain and the target domain can be joined together in one complex scene, in which case they produce metonymy”(Groossens 1990:336). Also according to him, a metonymy can exist in metaphor when “a metonymically used entity is embedded in a complex metaphorical expression”(1990:36).
CHAPTER 2 COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND IDIOMS
2.1 Cognitive linguistics. Main principles
Linguistic though and practice are embedded by cognitive linguistics, which is a modern school focused on analyzing the connection between the human language, socio-physical experience and the mind. Cognitive linguistics appeared in the 1970s. During that period of time, the disciplines of linguistics and philosophy were dominated by the formal approaches to language. This modern school was highly influenced by cognitive psychology, which also emerged during the 1960s and 1970s, even though at first it had a philosophical nature. This feature can be seen in the works about human categorization realized by Charles Fillmore in the 1970s and George Lakoff in the 1980s.
In the 1970s and early 1980s, research was dominated by a large number of scholars who lived in the USA. However, in the 1980s, the interest towards cognitive linguistics rose among those who inhabited the northern continental Europe. In 1989, due to the large interest of a significant number of scholars, the International Cognitive Linguistics Association was formed, followed by that of the Cognitive Linguistics journal, a year later. Ronald Langacker, a pioneer in the domain of cognitive linguistics, regarded the events that took place in 1989 and 1990 as “marking the birth of cognitive linguistics as a broadly grounded, self conscious intellectual movement”(Langacker 1991:15)
The best term to describe cognitive linguistics is “movement” because it does not stand as a single theory. It is complimentary, containing a pair of commitments as well as guiding principles. The two fundamental commitments are: the generalization and cognitive one, while the two main branches are: cognitive semantics and cognitive approaches to grammar.
“The Generalisation Commitment represents a dedication to characterizing general principles that apply to all aspects of human language” (Evans 2007:3). Its main focus is to find the existing broadcast generalizations.
In the case of formal linguistics, phonology, semantics, pragmatics and morphology have little basis for generalization because its main goal is to form language by means of explicit mechanical devices. In this case, formulations are created with the help of formalisms which have their origin in mathematics and logic. Naom Chomsky’s work is the most notable in formal linguistics.
Cognitive linguistics on the other hand considers that syntax, semantics and phonology should be treated differently. ”However, given the Generalization Commitment, cognitive linguistics does not start with the assumption that the modules or subsystems of language are organized in significantly divergent ways, or indeed that wholly distinct modules even exist”(Evans 2007:4). As a result, this commitment tries to investigate openly the way in which a common set of human cognitive abilities determine the apparition of different aspects of linguistic knowledge. Concrete consequences about studies of language are determined by the Generalization Commitment. Cognitive linguistics attempts to re-use methods and explanations across aspects of language, which have been previously successful, while also focusing on what is common among these aspects.
Furthermore, when studying language, cognitive linguistics adopt a “vertical” approach. Regarding the composition of language, it is considered as being formed of a set of distinct layers of organization. On one hand, the sound structure represents words created by sounds while on the other hand the syntactic structures contain the resulting words. “Vertical approaches get a richer view of language by taking a vertical slice of language, which includes phonology, morphology, syntax and of course a great amount of semantics”(Evans 2007:4). Vertical language is considered to be more complex compared to the horizontal one, keeping in mind the fact that it is more textured while at the same time offering possible explanations.
The Cognitive Commitment is the next one we are going to focus on. It offers a characterization of the general principles of language which relate with the information already provided by other disciplines about the brain and mind..This commitment provides the feature “cognitive” to cognitive linguistics.
“Just as the Generalization Commitment leads to the search for principles for language structures that hold across al aspects of language, in a related manner, the Cognitive Commitment represents the view that principles of linguistic structure should reflect what is known about human cognition from the other cognitive and brain sciences particularly psychology, artificial intelligence, cognitive neuroscience and philosophy”(Evans 2007:5)
As a result, Cognitive Commitment considers that models of language ought to reflect what is already known about the human mind and not specific formalisms.
This commitment contains several concrete ramifications. Structures or processes that do not respect the existing properties of the human cognitive system are not part of linguistic theories. Furthermore, already known properties of human cognition are used to explain the language phenomena. These modes are more willing compared to the ones that are formed from a priori simplicity metrics. It is absolutely necessary for a researcher in the domain of cognitive linguistics to find convergent proof of the cognitive reality “of components of any proffered model of explanation”(Evans 2007:5).
The best developed areas of cognitive linguistics are: cognitive semantics and the cognitive approach to grammar. Cognitive semantics studies the conceptual structure and meaning construction. It is also concerned with the relationship between experience, the conceptual system and the semantics encoded by language. In addition language is used as a means of investigating the cognitive phenomena. “Consequently, research in cognitive semantics tends to be interested in modeling the human mind as much as it is concerned with investigating linguistic semantics”(Evans 2007:5). On the other hand, the cognitive approach to grammar deals with the process of modeling the language system. This approach used the conclusions resulted from cognitive semantics in order to model the system.
The guiding principles of cognitive semantics are the following: conceptual structure is embodied, semantic structure is conceptual structure, meaning representation is encyclopedic and meaning construction is conceptualization. In the following section, these principles are going to be shortly presented.
According to the first principle, we have a species-specific view of the universe. This fact is determined by the nature of our bodies. As a result, our constructions of the world are determined by the nature of our embodiment. This process is clearer in the realm of colour. The human visual system has three kinds of photoreceptors while other organisms have more. “Having a different range of colour channels affects our experience of colour in terms of the range of colours accessible to us along the colour spectrum”(Evans 2007:5). Humans, unlike rattle snakes cannot see in the infrared range. The nature and range of our visual experience is determined by the nature of our visual apparatus.
The second principle states that language refers to the concepts that are produced in the mind of the speaker. The equality sign can be put between semantic structure and conceptual structure, but they are not identical. Semantic structure refers to the meanings that are associated by convention with words.
The third principle deals with the encyclopedic nature of semantic structure. As a result, lexical concepts are not dictionary views, and provide access to large amounts of knowledge relating to a particular concept. In affirming this, however, we cannot deny that words are associated with conventional meaning. Cognitive semantics considers this conventional character as being a prompt for the process of meaning construction in which an appropriate interpretation is chosen against the context of the utterance.
The final guiding principle suggests that language does not encode meaning by itself, and, as mentioned before, words are only prompts used to form meaning. So, meaning is the result of what happens at the conceptual level. The process of constructing meaning is similar with conceptualization in which, in order to recruit background knowledge, linguistic units are used as prompts. Meaning is considered a process not just a thing that can be packed by language.
In the next section, some of the most significant theories in cognitive semantics will be briefly discussed: image schema theory, the categorization and idealized cognitive modes, the cognitive lexical semantics and finally the mental spaces theory.
Mark Johnson developed the image schema. In his book entitles “The Body in the Mind”, he considers that image schemas help in the manifestation of the embodied experience. The concepts: CONTACT, CONTAINER and BALANCE are connected to the human preconceptual experience in which the human body structures the experience of the world in a direct way. “These image-schematic concepts are not disembodied abstractions, but derive their substance , in large measure, from the sensory-perceptual experiences that give rise to them in the first place”(Evans 2007:9).
Jean Mandler, a developmental psychologist, considers that children from an early age are attracted by objects and spatial display and that in this way, they associate them with similar experiences and as a result, they form patterns. The CONTAINER image is a configuration in which an entity is supported by another one which contains it.
Lakoff and Johnson considered that concepts of this type which are rudimentary embodied, can provide the conceptual building blocks and that in this way, structures can be provided in order to build more abstract concepts. The fundamental concept CONTAINER helps us understand abstract concepts like LOVE.
Johnson suggests that due to the fact that activity is constrained by containers, state of beings are conceptualized and therefore understood.
Mandler notes that “one of the foundations of the conceptualizing capacity is the image schema, in which the spatial structure is mapped into the conceptual structure”(Mandler 1992:591), further suggesting that “basic recurrent experienced with the world form the bedrock of the child’s semantic architecture, which is already established well before the child begins producing language”(Mandler 1992:597). In conclusion, experience helps form the basis of the humans’ fundamental concepts.
The second theory is related to Lakoff’s theory of Idealised Cognitive Modes. Lakoff’s ICMs are considered to represent background knowledge structures which have a stable character. He further sustained that categorization is related to ICMs, which are mentally stable representations about the world. In addition, cognitive processes such as categorization and reasoning are guided by ICMs. Different sources can cause the apparition of typicality effects, and they can be determined by the discrepancies between ICMs and how certain concepts are understood. These effects can also arise because of the sorts of ICMs that people have access to. This can appear when an exemplar represents an entire category and it is called metonymy. Typicality effects that appear in this way are called by Lakoff metonymic ICMs.
An example of this type of effect is the stereotype HOUSEWIFE-MOTHER. In this case, the mother stays at home, takes care of the children and does not have a job. According to this stereotype, mothers nurture children and to do so, they have to stay at home.
The two key commitments of cognitive linguistics are embodied by ICMs: the Generalisation and Cognitive one. Lakoff used the new findings from cognitive psychology and tried to construct a model of language that suited the findings. He used principles common to the linguistic and conceptual phenomena and finally laid the foundation for the cognitive approach to language.
The following theory in cognitive linguistics that we are going to present is the cognitive lexical semantics.
Lakoff’s theory of ICMs caused significant consequence in the domain of cognitive lexical semantics, which deals with the way in which the relationship word-meaning is managed by cognitive semantics. According to cognitive lexical semantics, lexical items are conceptual categories. As a result, a word represents meanings that are related but at the same time different and have typicality effects. Lakoff, words are categories that can be changed and researched by using the theory of ICMs. “In particular, Lakoff argued that lexical items represent the type of complex categories he calls radial category”(Evans 2007:15). A prototype is used in order to structure a radial category while its category members are related by means of convention to the prototype and not determined by predictable rules. Word meanings are senses kept in the mental lexicon.
Lakoff’s theory mentioned above has been highly influential, but still a number of criticisms arose especially regarding the “full-specification” view, according to which a large number of distinct senses can be designated to a lexical item. These criticisms were determined by the lack of clear methodological principles regarding the different meanings of an item. However, recent works have provided such a methodology. Due to these works, especially in the use of corpora, cognitive lexical semantics has made serious progress in the analysis of lexical categories.
The final theory is the mental spaces one, which is focused on meaning construction. It was developed by Gilles Fauconnier in his two books entitled “Mental Spces”(1985) and “Mappings in Thought and Language”(1997). Recently, he has extended the theory, resulting in the apparition of a new framework theory called Conceptual Blending Theory. These two try to analyse the hidden conceptual aspects of meaning construction. According to them, meaning is formed with the help of prompts that are provided by language. These prompts are underspecified.
Fauconnier suggests that two processes are involved in the construction of meaning: the construction of mental spaces and the establishment of mapping between those mental spaces. The local discourse context guides the mapping relations and because of this, the meaning construction is always context-bound. According to him, mental spaces are “partial structures that proliferate when we think and talk, allowing a fine-grained partitioning of our discourse and knowledge structures”(Fauconnier 1997:11). This theory suggests that meaning is divided by mental spaces into separate conceptual regions in the moment we think and talk.
Mental spaces encapsulate specific kinds of information, which are formed by means of generalized linguistics and information acquired through pragmatic and cultural strategies. But, mental spaces determine the apparition of temporary conceptual regions because they are constructed “on-line”. In addition, they are made in order to accomplish purposes that are specific to the ongoing discourse.
Linguistic expressions have meaning potential and they do not just encode meaning, but represent partial building instructions, through which mental spaces are formed. “Of course, the actual meaning prompted for by a given utterance will always be a function of the discourse context in which it occurs, which entails that the meaning potential of any given utterance will always be exploited in different ways depending upon the discourse context”(Evans 2007:18).
Scope builders set up mental spaces. These space builders can be prepositional phrases, adverbs (really, probably) and subject-verb combinations followed by an embedded sentence (Mary thinks that…). They can either prompt for the construction of a new mental space or turn the attention to the mental spaces that have been previously formed.
Elements are contained by mental spaces that can be entities which already exist in the conceptual system, or entities that are formed on line. Already existing knowledge structures, frames and ICMs internally structure the mental spaces. Mental spaces which have been constructed are linked to the others established during the discourse.
This theory shows how the viewpoint changes during discourse and at the same time offers intuitive solutions to referential problems to which formal semantics has not found a solution.
Bending Theory is related to Mental Spaces theory. This is determined by its concern with the dynamic aspects of meaning construction. However, it also has some differences because Blending Theory considers that meaning construction involves the integration of structure from across mental spaces, thus resulting the emergent structure. This structure contains more than the sum of its parts. Researchers approving of this theory suggest that the process of blending also referred to as conceptual integration, is a general and basic cognitive operation.
The second area of cognitive linguistics that we are going to focus on is the cognitive approach to grammar. This type of cognitive linguistics has a diversified set of foci and interests. Ronald Langacker, who is a cognitive linguist, tries to find the cognitive mechanisms and principles that are fundamental for the properties of grammar. Leonard Talmy on the other hand, tries to develop his model. Construction grammar theories are concerned with the characterization of the linguistic units and constructions that are found in a grammar. Other linguists focus on explaining the process of grammaticalisation.
Cognitive approaches to grammar have two guiding principles: the symbolic thesis and the usage-based thesis.
According to the symbolic thesis, the linguistic unit, also called form-meaning pairing is the fundamental unit of grammar. Langacker called it “symbolic assembly” and argued that it had two poles: the semantic one (meaning) and the phonological one (sound). Ferdinand de Saussure originated the idea that language has an essentially symbolic function. He also sustained the fact that the symbolic unit is the fundamental unit of grammar.
Cognitive approaches to grammar do not only investigate the aspects of grammatical structure, but it contains the entire inventory of linguistic units defined as form-meaning pairing. Meaning and grammar are interdependent and complementary. The cognitive approach to grammar assumes the study of the units of language, while the cognitive approach to semantics attempts to understand how this linguistic system in related to the conceptual system.
The usage-based thesis considers the speaker’s knowledge of language (mental grammar)to be created by the abstraction of symbolic units from instances of language use that are situated. According to this theory, there is no difference between knowledge of language and use of language because knowledge of language if knowledge of how language is used.
2.2 Conceptual structures in cognitive linguistics
Cognitive linguistics tries to classify the systematic processes through which people are able to understand abstract concepts. Lakoff’s Idealised Cognitive Model suggested that we organize our knowledge of the world through cognitive mechanisms. The structuring principles of ICMs are: metaphoric and metonymic mapping, propositional structure and image-schematic structure. The image schemas are the result of our sensory motor experience, while propositional ICMs are determined by predicate-argument descriptions. At the same time metaphors are sets of correspondence between discrete conceptual domains while metonymies are one correspondence mappings. On the other hand, Ruiz de Mendoza (1996) has sub-classified the ICMs into: operational (metaphor and metonymy) and non-operational (frames and image-schemas) cognitive modes. By doing this distinction, he presents the processual nature of metaphor and metonymy. These two concepts work on the basis of propositional or image-schematic ICMs.
In the following part of this subchapter, we are going to focus on the conceptual metaphors and metonymies.
In the cognitive linguistic view, conceptual metaphor is viewed as a process which helps humans understand concepts and domains in terms of other concepts. Conceptual metaphors have a very significant role in language due to the fact that they have central roles in the way in which we deduce concepts from one semantic area. In the cognitive tradition, metaphor is seen as a matter of thought and as a result it has a conceptual character, not a linguistic one. Conceptual metaphors are divided into three categories: oriental (through which people associate abstract concepts with experiences that involve spatial orientation just to help them understand concepts), ontological (help people to speak about abstract entities in terms of substances, objects without mentioning the type of the object or substance), and finally structural (presuppose the interrelation between two concepts, in which one is more abstract than the other).
Personification is a specific type of ontological metaphor. It attributes human characteristics to things and in doing so; it implies an understanding of non-human entities in terms of human beings.
These three types of metaphors are determined by the source domain. Conceptual metaphors present several differences from metaphorical expressions. The latter are determined by the terminology of more concrete source concepts. Humans use conceptual metaphors in an unconscious way and also without effort.
An important characteristic of conceptual metaphor is systematicity due to the fact that they provide systematic mappings between domains. Metaphorical expressions are systematically linked to particular conceptual metaphors. Furthermore, they form metaphor systems which are hierarchical. In terms of metaphor systems, different source domains characterize them. In English, the metaphor systems that were discovered are the following: the Great Chain of Being metaphor system, the Complex Systems metaphor systems and the Event structure metaphor system. English is not the only language in which these systems have been discovered. We can also mention Hungarian and Chinese.
The Great Chain of Being is a folk model of nature. It states that entities are organized hierarchically and as a result each level of the chain receives the properties of lower entities and incorporates a new one that makes each level more complex. Also, the defining property of each level is not inherited by the levels which are place below. Humans are rational beings, animals are instinctual, while plants are just entities that live. The classification mentioned above has been improved by Ruiz de Mendoza and Otal (2002). They consider that metonymy has an important role in the cognitive approaches to language. The analysis of metaphor clearly differentiated literal language from the figurative one, while at the same time having the central role in the reaction against the traditional view of conceptualization. Ruiz de Mendoza and Otal (2002) have established three criteria when they realized the classification of metaphor: the nature of the source domain, the complexity of the mapping system and the nature of such correspondences. They further suggested that a distinction ought to be realized between structural and non-structural metaphors according to the number of correspondences involved in the metaphoric mapping. Structural ones contain more than one correspondence while the others have only one. Lakoff’s orientational and ontological metaphors are part of structural metaphors. In addition, structural metaphors are divided into situational and non-situational. The non-situational ones can be image-schematic, image metaphors and propositional ones. Propositional metaphors are non-topological, while the remaining two are topological. In image schematic metaphors, the source domain contains one or more image-schemas, in image metaphors, the source and the same domain are images with a shared degree of similitudes, and in propositional metaphors, the target domain containing the abstract concepts is interpreted according to a non-situational construct in the same domain. A metonymic mapping should be made within the metaphoric source domain, through which a fragment of a situation is extended into a complete one in order to create situational metaphors. If this process can be noticed externally, then we have a scenic situational metaphor, if it is not, then the metaphor is a non-scenic one.
Grady (1997) made a distinction between resemblance and correlation metaphors taking into consideration the nature of mapping. Resemblance metaphors are based on the similarities existing between source and target while correlation metaphors are firmly based in the conflation of concepts.
The following scheme of metaphor types according to the nature of source domains was proposed by Ruiz de Mendoza and Otal (2002:52).
According to their level of generality, metaphors can be at the generic or specific level, thus resulting generic-level metaphors and specific-level metaphors. The former ones are on a high level on the scale of generality of conceptual metonymy. They encompass generic level source and target domains. An example may be EVENTS ARE ACTIONS or GENERIC IS SPECIFIC. Specific level metaphors instantiate generic level metaphors. On the other hand, specific level metaphors are instantiations of generic level metaphors. They are also made up of target domains and specific level source.
In terms of complexity, conceptual metaphors are divided by Grady into primary or compound, while Kövecses regards them as being simple or complex. According to Kövecses, simple metaphors map the meaning focus of the source onto the target and in doing so, they provide the major theme of complex sentences.
Many image schemas, as IN-Out, UP-DOWN are mapped by primary metaphors. “Non-decomposable primary metaphors usually have independent experiential motivation, and occur in various metaphorical expressions independently of any single metaphor” (Grady 1997:286).
Lakoff and Johnson (1999) argue that primary metaphors are acquired in an automatic and unconscious way and that they are embodied through bodily experience in the world.
Besides conceptual metaphors, there is another conceptual mechanism presented in Lakoff and Johnson’s Metaphor We Live By, which has a central role in human language and though called conceptual metonymy. It is a cognitive process in which the mental access to another conceptual entity (target) is allowed by one conceptual entity (the vehicle). This process happens within the same conceptual domain. Metonymical expressions are not isolated, but systematically analysed depending on the relationship existing between the given entities and are grouped according to conceptual metonymies.
Metonymies, like metaphors have a conceptual nature. Some scholars argue that metonymies have a more fundamental role to conceptual organization in comparison with metaphor. They have also claimed that metaphors have a metonymic basis
Here are some examples of conceptual metonymies: the entity Hemingway can be both the AUTHOR and the WORK, in the example Last night I read Hemingway. In addition PLACE can refer to an event that happened there or an institution whose headquarters are there. The specific relationship existing between the entities can be observed with the help of conceptual metonymies. Mostly we can notice that metonymy represents PART FOR WHOLE (let’s put our heads together) or WHOLE FOR PART (America is a huge country).
Metonymical relationships contain related entities which are close in terms of conceptual space. The producer is close to the product since it makes the product. Mental access to the target entity is provided by the vehicle entity which is in the same domain as the target entity. “The entities in an ICM form a coherent whole in our experience of the world as they can co-occur repeatedly” (Lakoff 1999:25).
In the following section we are going to present the relationship between conceptual metaphors and metonymies. The basic distinction between these two concepts is the type of mappings created between the domains. In metonymy, the mapping takes place within the same domain while in metaphors it happens across different experiential domains. As a result, metaphor is “a conceptual process which involves the mapping at the structure of one conceptual onto that of another conceptual domain”, while metonymy is “a conceptual process which involves the substitution of one conceptual entity for another conceptual entity within the same domain”(Dirven and Rodden 2001:25).
According to Kövecses (2002), there are several differences between metaphor and metonymy. Continuity is the basis of metonymy, while similarity is the basis of metaphor. On the other hand, metonymy involves one domain, compared to metaphor which involves two distant domains. Metonymy uses a single domain to allow access to a single target entity while metaphor is mainly used to understand a whole system of entities in terms of another system. Metaphor takes place only between concepts whereas metonymy also occurs between concepts, as well as linguistic forms.
Metaphor and metonymy interact sometimes making it difficult to state whether a linguistic expression is either a metaphor or metonymy. An example of this situation is the expression “to be close-lipped”. It has two meanings. The first one “to be silent” which uses metonymy and the second “to say little” based on metaphor. It is also possible to encounter a metonymy within metaphor. This happens in the expression “to shoot one’s mouth off” which means “to talk foolishly about something that one does not know much about or should not talk about”. “In the metaphorical reading, the gun as a source domain item is mapped onto the target domain, speech, more specifically, onto the mouth” (Kövecses 2002:15). So, the foolish use of a firearm is mapped onto foolish talk.
Many metaphors can have their basis formed by certain metonymic relationships. The main type of metonymic relationships which can determine the formation of conceptual metaphors are CAUSATION and WHOLE-PART.
The speaker’s shared everyday knowledge about particular domains is called conventional knowledge and it includes standard information about specific domains and the relationship between the entities. As a result, our conventional knowledge about a specific part of the body, for example the human hand, contains information about the parts, shape, size, and functionality.
Idiomatic expressions are motivated by several cognitive mechanisms. “Thus it is possible that in addition to one or more conceptual metaphor, a conceptual metonymy (or several conceptual metonymies), and/or our conventional knowledge, all contribute to the meaning of an idiomatic expression” (Csabi 2004:18).
Gibbs (1996) suggests that conceptual metaphors have psychological validity. He further argued that they are present in our conceptual system.
Conceptual metaphors and metonymies occur independently of language, due to the fact that there are a large number of non-linguistic realizations of the two conceptual structures. Lakoff and Johnson argue that (not all conceptual metaphors are manifested in the worlds of a language” (1999:57). Apart from figurative linguistic expressions, metaphors and metonymies can also be formed in the structures of movies, cartoons, morality, politics and many others.
2.3 Cognitive approach to idioms
Many cognitive linguists have shown an increased interest in the study of idioms. Scholars such as Gibbs (1990), O’Brien (1990), Kövecses and Szabó (1996) and Lakoff (1987) have demonstrated that the meanings of idioms are lexicalized and not just prefabricated. The processing of idioms does not depend on the strict dichotomy between literal and figurative meanings. However, it is more important to see to what degree “which literal words meanings contribute to the idiomatic meaning” (Csábi 2004:21).
According to the cognitive linguistic tradition, idioms have conceptual motivation, and as a consequence they have a natural character, and we perceive them in a transparent way because the non-idiomatic meaning of the constituent words is linked to the idiomatic meaning of idiom by means of the conceptual metaphor, conventional knowledge and conceptual metonymy.
Idiomatic expressions are badly motivated due to the embodiment. The direct sensorimotor experience of the world provides the connections between a source and a target. Linguists consider that most idioms are products of our conceptual systems. They also suggest that idioms are not just a matter of language. “An idiom is not just an expression that has a meaning somehow special in relation to the meaning of its constituent parts, but its meaning arises from our more general knowledge of the world embodied in our conceptual system”(Kövecses 1996:330). As a result, most idioms have a conceptual nature rather than a linguistic one.
Idioms have a decomposable or analyzable and an important part in the overall figurative meaning. Gibbs argues that there are several degrees of analyzability and in sustaining his theory, he provides the following example: “lay down the law” is more decomposable than “fall off the wagon”, which is more decomposable than “kick the bucket”. American speakers regard certain idioms as more or less decomposable while others are non-decomposable.
The decomposable character of idioms influences people’s intuitions concerning the syntactic behaviour of idioms. In Gibbs’ experiment “different syntactic constructions were rated according to the acceptability of syntactic alterations, and the results showed that idioms that had been regarded as semantically analyzable (e.g pop the question) were seen as syntactically more productive than the non-decomposable idioms”(Csábi 2004:22).
Some idioms show lexical flexibility, while at the same time, others are more flexible. This happens when we replace the noun or the verb in an idiom with another one, as in burst the question, instead of pop the question. When doing so, their original meaning can be destroyed according to their (non-) decomposable nature.
Gibbs’ experiments have also revealed that decomposability also affects the way in which people understand idioms. It is easier to understand an idiom if it is more decomposable. He further suggested that “the literal meanings of decomposable expressions directly contribute to these expressions’ figurative meanings” (Gibbs 1990:428). In doing so, we process simultaneously the literal and figurative meaning of an idiom.
Some idioms by not respecting the syntactic rules of the language are considered to be ill-formed, as in the case of by and large, in the know. Many ill-formed idioms are decomposable compared to the non-decomposable ones, because they require less time to be understood.
The cognitive linguistic view considers that the meanings of idioms are motivated, and also that in the case of many, this motivation is determined by the people’s conceptual knowledge. However, there can also be cases in which there is no conceptual motivation for the meaning of idioms at all, as in the case of kick the bucket. Not all idioms are metaphorical and not all metaphorical linguistic expressions are idioms. The number of metaphorical expressions produced by conceptual metaphors is higher than that of metaphorical idioms. These types of conceptual metaphors put together two conceptual domains which exist in themselves and make connections in our conceptual system. People know these metaphors implicitly. They also understand their meaning because it is similar to non-literal meanings.
Gibbs claims that “idioms are thought to have once been metaphorical because we can often trace a phrase back to its fully metaphorical use in an earlier stage of the language” (Gibbs 1994:275).
The majority of metaphors are the direct results of our conceptual system. As a result they are not just a matter of language and the lexicon. Besides the linguistic form, an idiom has an idiomatic meaning.
According to Kövecses and Szabó, several factors determine the meaning of many idioms. The general meaning of idioms is determined by the source-target relationship, while more specific meanings of idioms are provided by the systematic mapping between the source and target domains. Also, the meaning is determined by particular knowledge structures which are associated with the source domain and finally by the two cognitive mechanisms: metaphor and metonymy.
The cognitive theory has a weak point represented by the impossibility of applying the cognitive mechanisms to all idioms. In contrast, the cognitive frame offers a reasonable explanation for body parts idioms. Idioms which have in their composition body parts, are more predictable and easy to understand, because human are more familiar with their bodies. The idiomatic language focuses on people, their behaviour in society and physical and emotional states, thus resulting its anthropocentric character.
In their study Idioms: A view from Cognitive Semantics, Kövecses and Szabó have argued that the majority of idioms are the result of our conceptual system and not an expression filled with meaning. They have also sustained that they are determined bu our general knowledge of the world thus resulting their conceptual nature. Gibbs also shares this opinion claiming that “idioms do not exist as separate semantic units within the lexicon, but actually reflect coherent systems of metaphorical concepts” (1997:142).
New idioms are formed from conventional images, named by Lakoff “imageable idioms”. As a result, the meaning of an idiom does not have an arbitrary character, as suggested by the traditional view. We can also predict the meaning of an idiomatic expression based on its constituent parts. “With idioms which contain parts of the human body, the meaning is at least partially predictable from the meaning of its constituent parts because we all share conventional images of parts of our body” (Bilkova 2000:24).
The motivation of an idiom becomes clearer, when it has a highly predictable character. Idioms can be easier analysed if the same semantic field is shared among the individual components. Overall, individual words have a systematic role in forming the general meaning of an idiom. Speakers are consistent when it comes to images of idioms which share similar figurative meanings. Conventional images motivate idiomatic language, and this motivation is described by Lakoff as “the relationship between A and B is motivated just in case there is an independently existing link, L such that A-L-B “fit together”, and L makes sense of the relationship between A and B”(Lakoff 1990:200).
In conclusion, idioms are more than expressions filled with meaning. They are determined by our general knowledge of the world. They are more than dead idioms, some of them being compositional and conceptual devices. From the lexical point of view, idioms are conventional linguistic expressions.
CHAPTER 3 HAND AND ARM IDIOMS IN ENGLISH AND ROMANIAN
3.1 Hand idioms in English and Romanian
People use their hands in order to perform several activities in the external world such as: writing, playing, holding and manipulating things. The cognitive basis determined by our everyday experiences helps us conceptualize abstract concepts. Besides from physical activities, hands are also useful in communication. When we meet people for the first time, or when we greet them, we shake hands.
Various target domains are conceptualized by the hand which is regarded as being a container. It conceptualizes most often the domains of control and possession also playing an important role in activities and their conceptualization. The hand represents the people’s talents, abilities and capacity to perform a certain action.
Our conventional knowledge offers us information concerning the size, function, structure, movements, colour and other characteristics of the human body. This makes it possible for us to create idioms which include the word “hand” due to the fact that we relate it to various aspects and features of abstract targets such as: activities, possessions, control and skill. Hands represent control and also the means through which we can do certain activities. Our movements realized with our hands may also portray our emotions. Knowing the fact that with hands we hold things, makes possible the understanding of idioms such as: “in your hands” (Logman 2007:690) or “have your hands full” (Logman 2007:690).
The right hand compared to the left one is considered to be more skillful due to the fact that most people are right-handed, thus leading to idioms such as: ”right hand man” (Logman 2007:690), “right hand woman” (Logman 2007:690) .
Samaras (2003) suggests that “it is worth pointing out that in a hypothesized world where all, or at least most human beings are ambidextrous, probably mo expressions such as “one’s right hand man” (Logman 2007:690) and “have two hands” (Logman 2007:690) would exist, at least not with the senses they have acquired for us”(30). As a result, “right” is associated with “correct”, while “left” is considered to be “weak”.
Hands have a dominant and essential role in human activities and thus they are associated with skills. Both physical and mental activities can be suggested when using the word “hand”. Metonymically, hands are used to start an activity.
In the following section, we are going to examine idiomatic expressions containing the words “hand/hands” (Romanian mâna/ mâini), both in English and Romanian, with the aid provided by conceptual metaphors, metonymies and conventional knowledge.
Regarding the conceptual metonymy, the hand stands for person, activity, skill and control.
THE HAND STANDS FOR THE PERSON
In order to represent the person, the idiom “from hand to hand” (Logman 2007:690) “The passed the paper from hand to hand” is used, having the Romanian equivalent “a da din mâna in mâna” “Au dat hârtia din mâna in mâna” (DEX online). For an object to be passed to someone else we use our hands to hold it and the other person also uses his/her hands to receive and grab it. The literal meaning of the idiom mentioned above is connected to the idiomatic meaning. The connection is determined by the conceptual metonymy THE HAND STANDS FOR THE PERSON, which is in this case a linking vehicle. The same conceptual metonymy can be observed in the idiom “to ask for someone’s hand” (Logman 2007:690) “I asked for her hand”, with the Romanian equivalent “a cere mâna cuiva” in “I-am cerut mâna” (DLRC:130). In this case, the hand represents a person one wants to marry. The literal meaning is represented by the act of asking a particular person for their hand, while the idiomatic one is “to ask a woman to become one’s wife”. These two meanings are linked in order to create the final idiom. The conventional knowledge also plays an important part in the overall interpretation of the idiom. People have in their mind the moment when a man asks a woman to marry him. Usually when performing this activity, he holds the woman’s hand. “This act probably comes from the traditional Christian marriage service in which the woman’s hand is placed into the man’s by her father or guardian”(Bilkova 2000:72). The idioms “to be someone’s right-handed man” (Logman 2007:690) “He is the manager’s right hand”, Romanian “a fii mâna dreaptă a cuiva” (DEX online) “Este mâna dreaptă a managerului” can also be mentioned, in this case the word “hand” representing a trusted person, capable of doing the right thing. In the case of “give/want/need a hand” (Logman 2007:690) “Give me a hand”, Romanian “a da/a vrea/a avea nevoie de o mâna de ajutor” (DLR) “Dă-mi o mâna de ajutor”, the hand also stands for a person, one needing someone else when a task is too difficult to fulfill by oneself.
THE HAND STANDS FOR ACTIVITY
The meaning of the English idiom “to give a helping hand” (Logman 2007:690) “He gave Jane a helping hand”, Romanian “ a da o mâna de ajutor” (DEX online) “I-a dat lui Jane o mâna de ajutor” is motivated by the conceptual metonymy in which the hand represents an activity. The vehicle used to perform different activities is the hand, due to the fact that people are usually active. The meaning here is to help someone.
The following idiom “to sit on one’s hands” (Logman 2007:690) “Mike sit on Jane’s hands”, Romanian “a avea mâinile legate” (DLRC:123) “Jane are mâinile legate”, is also motivated by the metonymy mentioned above. In this case, the literary meaning is “having the hands folded, incapable of performing an action”. If we cannot use our hands we are mainly inactive. Another similar example is “somebody’s hands are tied” (Logman 2007:690), in which literary, one cannot do anything in a particular situation because one’s hands are tied. The Romanian equivalent is also “a avea mâinile legate” (DEX online).
The conceptual metonymy in which the hand stands for the activity can also be observed in the idiomatic expression “to put one’s hands in one’s pocket” (Logman 2007:690) “Mike could not solve the problem, so he put his hands in his pockets”, which means “to do nothing”, and in Romanian it is “cu mâinile in sân/buzunar”(DEX online), “Mike nu a putut rezolva problema, așa ca a stat cu mâinile in buzunar”. Another example is “to do something with one hand tied behind one’s back” (Logman 2007:690) “He built the house with one hand tied behind his back”, in Romanian “a face ceva cu mâinile legate la spate”(DEX online) “A vopsit casa cu mâinile legate la spate”, meaning being capable of performing an action without much effort.
The idiomatic expression “to be off your hands” (Logman 2007:690) “My brother is of my hands” with the equivalent “a-și lua mâinile de pe cineva/ceva” (DLRC:123) “Mi-am luat mâinile de pe fratele meu”, means that one is no longer responsible for a person anymore. In this case, an activity ceases to take place anymore. In the case of “have something/somebody on your hands” (Logman 2007:690) “I have too many things on my hands”, the meaning is the opposite, one having a difficult job, problem or situation to deal with. In Romanian, the expression “a avea multe pe cap” (DEX online) “Am prea multe pe cap” is used, but here, instead of “hand”, the word “cap” is used which means “head”.
This idiom “the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing” (Logman 2007:690) “When you need to solve something secretly, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing”, Romanian “nu știe stânga ce face dreapta” (DEX online) “Când faci un lucru in secret, nu știe stanga ce face dreapta”, says that two parts of an organization that should be doing the same thing are each doing different things without the other knowing.
The phrasal verb “hand over” (Logman 2007:690),”You have to hand over your papers” has a Romanian equivalent created by derivation from the word “mână”(hand), adding the prefix “în-”, and it means to give something to a person by handing in, as in the example “Trebuie sa înmânati lucrările”.
THE HAND STANDS FOR THE SKILL
Skill is needed in order to perform an activity successfully and conventional knowledge tells us that we have to practice movements of hands and at the same time remember the procedures performed in order to be successful. This conceptual metonymy together with conventional knowledge provides the motivation for the following idiom “to have a hand in something” (Logman 2007:691) “He has a hand in cooking” in Romanian “a fii îndemânatic” (DEX online) “El e îndemânatic in bucătărie” , created through derivation from the root “mâna”
THE HAND STANDS FOR CONTROL
Control over a person or situation can be expressed both in English and Romanian through several expressions. This happens in the case of the idiom “to rule someone/ something with a hand of iron” (Logman 2007:691) “My sister ruled the company with a hand of iron”, in Romanian “a avea mâna de fier/ mâna forte” (DLRC:124) “Sora mea a condus compania cu o mâna de fier”. In English it means “to rule with a hard hand”, while in Romanian it ascribes the quality of a person as being “authoritarian”. “This idiom is probably motivated by the conventional knowledge of the past when rulers used to wear chain gloves” (Bilkova 2000:74). In this case the conceptual metonymy THE HAND STANDS FOR THE VEHICLE can also be used. In order of a person to act in an oppressive way, he must have control over the others, thus the conceptual metonymy THE HAND STANDS FOR CONTROL.
Another example for this conceptual metonymy is the expression “an iron hand in a velvet glove” (Logman 2007:691) “My manager solved the conflict in the company with an iron hand in a velvet glove”, in Romanian “o mână de fier intr-o mănușă de catifea” (DEX online) “Managerul meu a rezolvat conlifctul din companie cu o mână de fier intr-o mănușă de catifea”, which means a strict attitude made to seem soft.
The lack or gradual loss of control can be encountered in “get out of hand” (Logman 2007:691) “Things got out of hand”, Romanian “a scăpa din mână” (DLRC:125) “Lucrurile au scăpat din mână, in which a situation or person becomes impossible to control any longer.
Another expression in which a person loses control of a situation, thus being at the mercy of someone else is “at the hands of somebody” (Logman 2007:691) “He is now at the hands of his enemies”, in Romanian “a fii la mâna cuiva” (DEX online) “El este acum la mâna dușmanilor săi”. This type of control can also be found in the expression “to eat out of someone’s hand” (Logman 2007:691) “He is eating out of my hand”, which is to be completely under someone’s control. In the Romanian equivalent the word “palmă” is used instead of “hand” thus resulting “a mânca din palma”(DEX online),” Îmi mănâncă din palmă”.
In the case of conceptual metaphors, most idioms express control and possession. Other target domains may be: agreement, freedom, cooperation and honesty represented by clean hands.
Besides conceptual metonymies, conceptual metaphors also motivate the meaning of idioms both in Romanian and English. Also, conventional knowledge is important in order to interpret them correctly.
The first conceptual metaphor that we are going to focus on is CONTROL IS HOLDING IN THE HAND. “To get your hands on somebody/something” (Logman 2007:691) “I got my hands on the big prize”, Romanian “a pune mâna pe ceva” (DEX online) “Am pus mâna pe premiul cel mare” is motivated by the metaphor BEGINNING TO HAVE CONTROL OVER SOMEBODY IS PUTTING ONE’S HAND ON SOMEBODY and as a result, its focus is on the moment in which the process of taking control takes place. Conventional knowledge is useful, telling us that we use our hands in order to exert physical force both on people and things. In the case of the idiom “force someone’s hand” (Logman 2007:691) “He forced his brother’s hand to cancel the meeting”, Romanian “a forța mâna cuiva” (DEX online) “Aforțat mâna fratelui sau să anuleza ședința”, the conceptual metaphor CONTROL IS APPLYING PHYSICAL FORCE motivates the overall meaning.
In the idiom “to take someone/something in the hand” (Logman 2007:692) “She took the money in her hands”, Romanian “a ține ceva in mâna”(DLRC:126) “A ținut banii în mâna”, we can do anything we want with something once it is in our hands thus having complete control over it. Another example of the conceptual metaphor CONTROL IS HOLDING IN THE HAND is the expression “to fall into someone’s hand” (Logman 2007:692) “He fell into the wrong hands”, in Romanian “a cădea in mâinile cuiva” (DEX online) “A căzut in mâini greșite”. In the case of both languages, the fact that someone falls into one’s hands happens by mistake, unintentionally. When we hold something, we become chief manipulator. “The conceptual metaphor CONTROL IS HOLDING IN THE HAND links the knowledge to the figurative meaning of this idiom, which is “to unintentionally come under someone’s control”(Bilkova 2000:76).
Other idioms which show the fact that conceptual metaphors have a role in the motivation of idioms will be further presented. One of them is “to be out of one’s hands” (Logman2007:690), Romanian “a scăpa din mâna”(DEX online) which means to “no longer have any control over someone/something”. The same happens with “to take the law into one’s own hands” (Logman 2007:692) “He took the law into his owm hands”, in Romanian “cu legea in mâna” (DEX online) “Și-a făcut dreptate cu legea în mâna”, meaning to execute law and order.
Control is also encountered in “to lay hands on someone” (Logman 2007:691), Romanian “a pune mâinile pe cineva” (DLRC:126), meaning to catch or get someone under the hand, as in the example mentioned above.
AGREEMENT IS SHAKING HANDS
“To shake hands” (Logman 2007:692) “They shook hands on the project”, with the Romanian equivalent “a bate mâna” (DEX online), “Au bătut mâna pe proiect” means to agree on something. “The conceptual metaphor which seems to connect our conventional knowledge of the typical gesture associated with the human hand with the idiomatic meaning is AGREEMENT IS SHAKING HANDS”(Bilkova 2000:76). People shake hands when they meet, but also when they close a deal after negotiations. This act of agreement stands as a promise and further confirms the honesty of the people’s intentions. This conceptual metaphor is based on the people’s life experience when shaking hands after agreeing on something.
POSSESSION IS HOLDING SOMETHING IN THE HANDS
This conceptual metaphor can be encountered in the English idiom “get/lay hands on something” (Logman 2007:691), in Romanian “a pune mâna pe ceva” (DEX online). Once we hold something in our hands, even for a short period of time, it becomes our property and at the same time we have control over it. Another example is “to pass from hand to hand” (Logman 2007:690), Romanian “a da din mână in mână”(DEX online), which means to change owners. The English idiom “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” (Logman 2007:692) “This is not a good offer, bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” , which means that is better to take advantage from something that we are sure about rather than from a thing which is uncertain in the future. The Romanian equivalent is “nu da vrabia din mâna pe cioara de pe gard” (DLRC:127) “Aceasta nu este cea mai bună ofertă, nu da vrabia din mâna pe cioara de pe gard”. An object/person that/who is closer to the body represents a higher degree of certainty.
FREEDOM TO ACT IS HAVING THE HANDS FREE
This conceptual metaphor motivates both English and Romanian idiomatic expressions. This can be observed in the case of the English idiom “to have a free hand in something” (Logman 2007:692) “You have a free hand to decide the colour of the walls”, which in Romanian is “a avea mână liberă” (DEX online) “Ai mână liberă să alegi culoarea pereților”, literally meaning “to have the liberty to do anything a person wants”. When we do an activity with our hands, we decide what to do with them according to our own will. “The conceptual metaphor FREEDOM TO ACT IS HAVING THE HANDS FREE seems to be linking the knowledge we have about the hand not being used in an activity with the image of freedom which is expressed in this idiom”(Bilkova 2000:78).
COOPERATION IS HOLDING HANDS
“To join hands” (Logman 2007:692) “We joined hands to find a solution” is a perfect example of the conceptual metaphor mentioned above. Since the hands may represent a person, our conventional knowledge informs us that when working together, we join our resources and efforts in order to obtain results. The literal meaning of this idiom is “to cooperate”.
Another example is “someone’s left hand does not know what the right hand is doing” (Logman 2007:690), in Romanian “nu știe mâna stanga ce face dreapta” (DEX online), the examples have been previously mentioned. Normally two hands are needed in order to perform an activity successfully, and when we use only one we cannot easily reach our target. Also, in order to correctly interpret this idiom, the conceptual metonymy THE HAND STANDS FOR THE PERSON helps us. These cognitive vehicles help the users of a language understand the idiomatic meaning of the previously mentioned idiom.
The following example “to be hand in glove with someone” (Logman 2007:692) “He is hand in glove with the mafia” , Romanian “a fii mână in mână cu cineva” (DEX online) “Este mână in mână cu mafia”, perfectly exemplifies the conceptual metaphor COOPERATION IS HOLDING HANDS and it means to perfectly cooperate with someone.
TO BE HONEST IS TO HAVE CLEAN HANDS
Several expressions both in English and Romanian exemplify this conceptual metaphor which stands for honesty. The English expression “to have clean hands” (Logman 2007:692) “He has clean hands, he has not done a single act of corruption”, has the Romanian equivalent “a avea mâinile curate” (DEX online) “Are mâinile curate, nu a făcut niciun act de corupție”. This idiom is motivated by the conventional knowledge in which people who have committed a murder have blood on their hands.
3.2 Arm idioms in English and Romanian
Conventional knowledge provides us information regarding the utility of arms in everyday activities. They connect the upper body to the hands thus making it possible for us to perform all kinds of actions. As a result, it is an indispensible part of the body, the lack of it being the equivalent of incapacity and life full of sacrifice.
Regarding the conceptual metonymies, the arm may stand for life or sacrifice, acceptance, distance, action, power and chance.
The following idioms:”give an arm and a leg for something/somebody” (Logman 2007:66), “would give your right arm” (Logman 2007:66) “I would give an arm and a leg/ my right arm for my best friend”, have no Romanian equivalents containing the word “arm”, but the saying in the target language is “a da viața pentru ceva/cineva” (DEX online) “Mi-aș da viață pentru cel mai bun prieten”, and it means to give your life for something or somebody. In this case, the arm stands for sacrifice. Conventional knowledge tells us that life without an arm would be difficult, full of sacrifices and impossibility to perform everyday activities as rapid and as correct as with two arms.
The expression “cost an arm and a leg” (Logman 2007:66), “This car costs an arm and a leg”, has no Romanian equivalent and it means “very expensive”. If in order to buy an object one needs to give up a body part or even two, then he/she needs to make an enormous sacrifice in order to purchase it.
In “keep avoiding someone at arm’s length” (Logman 2007:66), “I keep avoiding seeing my supervisor at arm’s length”, the arm stands for distance. This expression has no Romanian equivalent and it basically means to not be physically close to a person, this distance being approximately “one arm”
“The long arm of coincidence” (Logman 2007:66), “The long arm of coincidence made us to meet at that restaurant” also has no Romanian equivalent, meaning “the power of coincidence”. Conventional knowledge shows us that when we meet people we know by chance, we do not want to keep them away from us physically.
The English idiom “the long strong arm of the law” (Logman 2007:66) “The long strong arm of the law gave the right sentence”, in Romanian “brațul lung al dreptații” (DEX online) “Brațul lung al dreptații a dat sentința corectă” stands for action. In this case we associate the idiom mentioned above with the action that a judge performs in court. When he/she wants the audience to be quiet or when he gives the sentence, he/she uses the hammer, action realised with the help of the arm.
When we accept a person, or we greet him/her, we open our arms and embrace him/her, thus resulting the idiom “with open arms” (Logman 2007:66) “We greeted them with open arms” in Romanian “cu brațele deschise” (DEX online) “I-am primit cu brațele deschise”. In this way we are sincere; we show emotions and nonetheless accept that person.
Power is portrayed in “twist someone’s arm” (Logman 2007:66) “He twisted my arm into signing the contract”, Romanian “a forța mâna cuiva” (DEX online) “Mi-a forța mâna să semnez contractual”, meaning to determine someone to perform certain action. In Romanian the word “hand” is used instead for “arm”.
In the case of the following examples: “walk arm in arm” (Logman 2007:66) “We walked arm in arm”, “a merge braț la braț” (DEX online) “Am mers braț la braț“ and “take somebody by the arm” (Logman 2007:66) “I took her by the arm to show her the way”, “ a da brațul (pentru a conduce)”(DEX online) “Mi-a dat brațul pentru a-i arăta calea”, the arm stands for the person. We have in our mind the image of two people walking close to each other and at the same pace. In this case, arm may also stand for closeness. In the second idiom when we want to lead a person to a certain location or give tem guidance, we take him/her by the arm.
In the case of conceptual metaphors, INTIMACY IS PHYSICAL CLOSENESS, and PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM IS PHYSICAL HARM can be encountered. Some idioms will be analysed in order to portray the concepts mentioned above.
The idiom “ a shot in the arm” (Logman 2007:66) which has no Romanian counterpart is related metaphorically to the physical impact of getting a real shot in the arm. When we are ill, we get an injection in order to be healthy again. But health can also be procured mentally, a certain moment, person or object may give us the “shot” needed in order to be happy again.
Intimacy is found in “with open arms” (Logman 2007:66)/ “cu brațele deschise” (DEX online) and “at arm’s length” (Logman 2007:66). To become physically close means being able to touch another person.
These conceptual metaphors portray the fact that idioms containing the word “arm” portray psychological stimulation but also distance or closeness towards people.
CONCLUSIONS
The following study which focuses on hand and arm idioms in English and Romanian supports the conceptual theory developed by cognitive linguistics according to which our thinking is metaphorical, this characteristic being reflected in our everyday communication through the words we choose to use. Throughout our work, we have tested the claim according to which idioms are motivated by three cognitive strategies: general conventional knowledge, conceptual metaphor and metonymies.
This study has also been conducted with the help of standard idiomatic dictionaries but also standard ones of both languages thus excluding informal idiomatic phrases.
Our conventional knowledge offers us information concerning the size, functions, structure, movements, colour and characteristics of the human body. This makes it possible for us to create idioms which include the words “hand” and “arm” due to the fact that we relate it to various aspects and features of abstract targets such as: activities, possession, control and skill. We store information about the human arm and hand with the help of conventional metaphor and metonymy.
In order to understand the way in which people think, it is better to examine idioms across languages, we have focused on Romanian and English idioms containing body parts in order to present and to a certain degree support the idea discovered and promoted by cognitive linguistic according to which our thinking is metaphorical and we make use of it when speaking and choosing the words to communicate.
In the first chapter, we have portrayed the fact that there are several definitions of idioms due to the fact that they represent a difficult and controversial aspect of linguistics. Idioms also play an important part in the process of re-evaluation of language and also in conceptualizing and understanding the world. According to the traditional view, idioms are structures that consist of two or more words whose overall meaning cannot be predicted from the meaning of the constituent parts. It also claims that the overall meaning is arbitrary. In this chapter, we further discuss the role of metaphor and metonymy in our thinking and the fact that idioms arise from our general knowledge of the world embodied in our conceptual system thus resulting the fact that most idioms have a conceptual and not a linguistic nature.
In the second chapter, the cognitive framework has been provided to further analyse idioms. The motivation of idioms arises from conceptual metaphors, conceptual metonymies and conventional knowledge, which are prevalent means of understanding abstract concepts. The cognitive linguistic view agrees with the fact that the meaning of idioms cannot be fully predicted but it also sustains that up to a certain degree it can be motivated. The motivation of idioms is realized with at least three cognitive mechanisms: metaphor, metonymy and everyday knowledge.
In the last chapter, we have shown that there are similarities between English and Romanian idioms containing “hand” and “arm”, thus resulting the fact that the speakers of these languages share certain concepts which allow them to understand the figurative meaning based on the counterparts. This chapter presents the hand idioms, since they are used to conceptualise the most frequently addressed target domains of the specific body part as well as its characteristics. The hand can be used in the conceptualization of various target domains. We conceptualise more accepted wisdom that are abstract through our everyday experienced which provide the cognitive basis. The metaphors and metonymies which describe targets are based in our cognitive systems. When we use idioms containing hand and arm, we make use of our conventional knowledge. The hand is used to represent a person, an activity, skills and control, while the arm may stand for life, sacrifice, acceptance, action or power.
This paper portrays the fact that there is a considerable degree of correspondence between English and Romanian idioms consisting of the following body part: hand and arm. Some idiomatic expressions share the same figurative meaning in both languages.
When we examine idioms through language we understand the way in which people think and we also obtain an extraordinary insight into human psychology.
SUMMARY
În primul capitol al lucrării intitulate "Expresii idiomatice ce aparțin domeniului conceptual al mâinii și brațului în limbile engleză și română", se oferă detalii referitoare la tipurile de expresii idiomatice și de asemenea diferite definiții realizate de cei mai importanți cercetători în domeniu. De asemenea, în acest capitol prezentăm viziunea tradițională asupra idiomurilor, conform căreia sensul general al acestora este arbitrar și nu în ultimul rând că sunt structuri compuse din cel puțin două cuvinte al căror sens general nu poate fi dedus din sensul părților componente. Tot în acest capitol abordăm rolul idiomurilor în gândirea noastră. Idiomurile au o natură conceptuală și conform unor experimente, s-a demonstrat faptul că acestea pot fi parțial motivate. Idiomurile apar din cunoștintele noastre mai generale ale lumii încorporate în sistemul nostru conceptual. Prin intermediul lor sunt aduse la lumină aspecte importante referitoare la gândirea noastră din fiecare zi. “Există dovezi experimentale că sensurile idiomurilor pot fi motivate parțial de faptul că unii vorbitori recunosc relația dintre cuvintele în idiomuri și interpretările lor generale figurative. Părțile idiomurilor se referă la diferite domenii ale științei, dintre care multe sunt conceptualizate în metafore”(Takacs 2004:11)
În cel de-al doilea capitol discutăm despre principiile lingvisticii cognitive, accentul căzând pe ramura sa intitulată semantica cognitivă. Al doilea subcapitol se axează pe structurile conceptuale întâlnite în lingvistica cognitivă și anume: metafora și metonimia conceptuală. Metaforele conceptuale sunt demonstrații și mijloace de continuare a metodelor mentale. Expresiile lingvistice sunt manifestări ale metaforelor conceptuale și prin urmare doar expresiile lingvistice metaforice dezvăluie existența unor metafore conceptuale. Întalnim metafore conceptuale doar în momentul în care interpretăm un concept mai abstract prin intermediul unui concept mai fizic. “Distincția dintre metaforă conceptuală și lingvistică, care este, între limbă și gândire, este esențială pentru înțelegerea mecanismelor generatoare de multe expresii idiomatic”.(Takacs 2004:9). Metonimiile asemeni metaforelor sunt conceptuale în natură iar potrivit lui Panther și Thornburg (2007), metonimia conceptuală este un proces cognitiv, în cazul în care sursa de conținut oferă acces la ținta de conținut într-un domeniu cognitiv. Viziunea lingvistică cognitivă este de acord cu viziunea tradițională că sensul idiomurilor nu poate fi prezis în întregime, dar în același timp susține faptul că pot fi motivate.
În ultimul capitol, sunt prezentate idiomurile care conțin cuvintele "mâna" și "braț". Ele vor fi interpretate pe baza cunoștințelor generale ale persoanelor pentru a identifica similarități și diferențe între idiomuri în limba română și engleză. Experiențele noastre de zi cu zi, cu mâinile noastre constituie baza cognitivă pentru noi să conceptualizăm înțelepciunea acceptată care este abstractă, astfel mâinile pot fi utilizate în conceptualizarea domeniilor țintă diferite. Toate metaforele și metonimiile descriind aceste obiective sunt bine fundamentate în sistemul nostru cognitiv și nu contravin cunoștințelor noastre convenționale despre mâna. Același process are loc și în ceea ce privește expresiile idiomatic ce conțin “braț”, vorbitorii bazându-se pe cunoștiințele generale pentru a putea interpreta corect expresiile ce conțin această parte a corpului.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bilkova, Ilona, Czech and English Idioms of Body Parts. A view from Cognitive Semantics. University of Glasgow, 2000.
Cacciari, C. and S. Glucksberg. 1994. “Understanding Figurative Language”. Handbook
of Psycholinguistics. Ed. M.A. Gernsbacher. New York: Academic Press. 447- 477.
Croft, W., ‘The Role of Domains in the Interpretation of Metaphors and Metonymies’,
Cognitive Linguistics, vol. 4(4) (1993), pp. 335-370.
Csábi, Szilvia. 2004. “A Cognitive Linguistic View of Polysemy in English and its Implications for Teaching.” In: Michel Achard, & Susanne Niemeier (ed.). SOLA: Studies on Language Acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching Series. 233–256. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Evans, V. and M. Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner. 1996. “Blending as a central process in grammar”.
Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language. Ed. A. Goldberg. Stanford, Cal.: Cambridge University Press. 113-130.
Fernando, C., Idioms and Idiomaticity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Fillmore, C.J. and B.T.S. Atkins. 1992. “Towards a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors”. Frames, Fields, and Contrast: New Essays in
Semantics and Lexical Organization. Eds. A. Lehrer and E. Kittay. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 75-102.
Gibbs, R. 1980. “Spilling the Beans of Understanding and Memory for Idioms in Conversation”. Memory and Cognition, 8(2): 149-156.
Gibbs, R. W. and J. E. O’Brien, ‘Idioms and Mental Imagery: The Metaphorical Motivation for Idiomatic Meaning’, Cognition, vol. 36 (1990), pp. 35-68.
Gibbs, R. W., ‘Idiomaticity and Human Cognition’, in M. Everaert and E. J. van der Linden (eds), Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, 1995.
Glucksberg, S. 1991. “Beyond Literal Meanings: The Psychology of Allusion”.
American Psychological Science, 2(3): 146-152.
Goossens, L., ‘Metaphtonymy: the Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in Expressions for Linguistic Action’, Cognitive Linguistics, vol. 1(3), (1990), pp. 323-340.
Kövecses, Z. and P. Szabó. 1996. “Idioms: A view from Cognitive Semantics”. Applied
Linguistics, 17(3): 326-355.
Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About
the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991b. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Practical Applications. Vol. 2. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Makkai, A., Idiom Structure in English. The Hague: Mouton, 1972.
Peña Cervel, S. 2003. Topology and Cognition: What Image-Schemas Reveal about the
Metaphorical Language of Emotions. LINCOM Studies in Cognitive Linguistics. München: Lincolm
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. 1997. “Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual interaction”.
Atlantis, Vol. 19, 1: 281-295.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. 1998. “On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon”,
Journal of Pragmatics, 30-3: 259-274.
Weinreich, U., ‘Problems in the Analysis of Idioms’, in U. Weinreich, On Semantics, W. Labov and B. S. Weinreich (eds). Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 1980, pp. 208-64.
Dictionaries
.Dictionarul Limbii Romane (DLR). Serie Noua. Bucuresti. Editura Academiei, 1965.Print
Dictionarul Limbii Romane Contemporane (DLRC), vol I-IV. Bucuresti: Editura Academiei. 1955-1957. Print
Hulban, Horia. Dictionatul roman-englez de expresii si locutiuni. Iasi:Polirom, 2012. Print
Nicolaescu, Adrian et al. Dictionatul frazeologic englez-roman. Bucuresti: Editura Teora, 1993. Print
www.dexonline.ro: https://dexonline.ro/ La data de 21.03.2016 ora 16:30
Logman Exam Dictionary. London: Logman Group 2007. Print
Logman Idioms Dictionary (LID). London: Logman Group, 2001.Print
Oxford Idioms Dictionary for Learners of English (OID). Oxford: OUP, 2003.Print
Copyright Notice
© Licențiada.org respectă drepturile de proprietate intelectuală și așteaptă ca toți utilizatorii să facă același lucru. Dacă consideri că un conținut de pe site încalcă drepturile tale de autor, te rugăm să trimiți o notificare DMCA.
Acest articol: Expresii Idiomatice Ce Aparțin Domeniului Conceptual AL Mâinii ȘI Brațului ÎN Limbile Română ȘI Engleză (ID: 115343)
Dacă considerați că acest conținut vă încalcă drepturile de autor, vă rugăm să depuneți o cerere pe pagina noastră Copyright Takedown.