High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction

Ibáñez, Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza; Usón, Ricardo Mairal

doi:10.1075/z.136.05rui

Cited by 86 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The LCM adds a licensing factor for coercion to take place. In the example, the predicate 'laugh' can be built into the caused-motion construction because it is possible to see psychological or emotional impact in terms of physical impact, which is a form of metaphorical thought that Ruiz de Mendoza and Mairal (2007) have labeled high-level metaphor, since it has a more abstract nature than lexical or situational metaphors. Because of their abstract nature, highlevel metaphors usually underlie grammatical phenomena.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argument constructions and language processing: Evidence from a priming Experiment and pedagogical implications

Eddington¹,

Mendoza²,

Knop³

et al. 2010

Fostering Language Teaching Efficiency Through Cognitive Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The notion of argument construction is widely accepted in Cognitive Linguistics circles as a highly explanatory theoretical construct. It has recently been incorporated into the Lexical-Constructional Model (LCM; Ruiz de Mairal 2007, 2008), a theoretical approach to meaning construction that integrates argument constructions into a broader model that incorporates meaning dimensions traditionally dealt with in the domain of pragmatics and discourse analysis. The LCM has an argument level of description, in the form of constructional templates, which are in general equivalent to the argument constructions postulated in Goldberg's (1995Goldberg's ( , 2006 Construction Grammar, although there are crucial differences in the descriptive metalanguage and the principles used to explain their linguistic behavior. Since the LCM is geared to have psychological adequacy, like all cognitive (cf. Lakoff 1990) and some functional approaches to language (e.g. Dik 1997), it is essential to find to what extent the notion of argument construction is a real processing mechanism. This paper presents a priming experiment measuring reaction times to sentences that had the same formal configurations but were based on different argument constructions, and to sentences that were formally similar and embodied the same argument construction. Subjects responded significantly faster to target sentences that shared the same construction as the previously viewed sentences. Thus, constructions appear to be psychological entities that play an important role in linguistic processing. If this is correct, then it has potentially important consequences for planning adequate L2 teaching strategies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argument constructions and language processing: Evidence from a priming Experiment and pedagogical implications

Eddington¹,

Mendoza²,

Knop³

et al. 2010

Fostering Language Teaching Efficiency Through Cognitive Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In-depth studies about how different rhetorical resources cooperate are scarce. Some contributions are focused on the interaction between metaphor and metonymy (Goossens 1990;Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & Mairal Usón 2007;Negro Alousque 2013;Ying-Yu Lin & Chiang 2015) and some others offer a general panorama (Pedrazzini & Scheuer 2012). In this particular research about political cartoons, we observed an association between irony and sarcasm and other figures of thought such as allusion operating in the verbal mode.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Distinguishing cartoon subgenres based on a multicultural contemporary corpus

Pedrazzini

Scheuer

2018

EJHR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In this process, constructional templates coerce lexical templates following internal and external constraints on subsumption. As noted by Ruiz de Mendoza and Mairal (2007, 2008, 2011 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…The Lexical-Constructional Model (LCM;Ruiz de Mendoza and Mairal 2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2011Mairal and Ruiz de Mendoza 2009;cf. Butler 2009), as a usage based, comprehensive theory of meaning construction, distinguishes four meaning construction layers for linguistic description and explanation: argument structure (level 1), pragmatic implication (level 2), illocution (level 3) and discourse, including discourse constructions and inferential activity based on high-level propositional models (level 4).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The integration of contact by impact verbs into the intransitive motion construction

Iza¹

2015

Círculo De Lingüística Aplicada a La Comunicación

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present investigation will analyze the lexical-constructional integration of contact by impact verbs (transitive by origin) into the intransitive-motion construction.Departing from the classical works by Levin (1993), Goldberg (1995) and Faber and Mairal (1999) on contact by impact verbs, I will propose a new taxonomy that overcomes the weaknesses of previous classifications and discuss the constructional use of these verbs in real language data. Finally, I will explain the compatibility of such verbs with the intransitive-motion construction following the explanatory tools provided by the Lexical Constructional Model (Ruiz de Mendoza and Mairal, 2008a, 2008b, 2011. The main conclusions that derive from this study are that most contact-byimpact verbs are compatible with the intransitive-motion construction, this integration being possible by applying different high-level metaphors and metonymies and that all contact-by-impact verbs that are related to sound (batter, bump, crack,…) are licensed into the intransitive-motion construction thanks to the use of the high-level metonymy iza: contact-by-impact verbs 174 RESULT FOR ACTION, in which the resulting sound is taken as the action performed by the subject.

show abstract

High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction

Cited by 86 publications

References 10 publications

Argument constructions and language processing: Evidence from a priming Experiment and pedagogical implications

Argument constructions and language processing: Evidence from a priming Experiment and pedagogical implications

Distinguishing cartoon subgenres based on a multicultural contemporary corpus

The integration of contact by impact verbs into the intransitive motion construction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About