Chapter published in:
Perception Metaphors
Edited by Laura J. Speed, Carolyn O'Meara, Lila San Roque and Asifa Majid
[Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 19] 2019
► pp. 209–230

Grounding mental metaphors in touch

A corpus-based study of English and Polish

This study aims to describe how experiences of tactile properties of physical objects give rise to metaphorical conceptualisations of mind and thought in English and Polish based on linguistic data from the British National Corpus and the National Corpus of Polish. This issue is approached from the perspective of corpus-based cognitive linguistics by combining the Theory of Objectification framework and the methodological tools of corpus linguistics. By analysing a wide range of tactile properties ascribed to the selected mental phenomena in light of the Theory of Objectification, the study aims to demonstrate how active, exploratory, tactile experiences of physical objects’ qualities ground our talk about impalpable cognitive phenomena.
Keywords: Theory of Objectification, English, Polish, corpus-based linguistics, conceptualisation, touch, mind, thought, conceptual metaphor, metaphor
Published online: 21 February 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.11tro
References

References

Aston, G. & Burnard, L.
(1998) The BNC Handbook: Exploring the British National Corpus with SARA. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Barnden, J. A.
(1997) Consciousness and common-sense metaphors of mind. In S. O’Nuallain et al. (Eds.), Two Sciences of Mind: Readings in Cognitive Science and Consciousness (pp. 311–341). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bayne, T. & Spence, C.
(2015) Multisensory Perception. In M. Matthen (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Perception (pp. 603–620). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clackson, J.
(2007) Indo-European Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Classen, C.
(1993) Worlds of Sense: Exploring the Senses in History and Across Cultures. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2012) The Deepest Sense: A Cultural History of Touch. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A.
(2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
(2009) Connecting frames and constructions: a case study of “eat” and “feed”. Constructions and Frames, 1(1), 7–28.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Vignemont, F. & Massin, O.
(2015) Touch. In M. Matthen (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Perception (pp. 294–313). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Deignan, A.
(2005) Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Corpus linguistics and metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp. 280–294). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deignan, A. & Cameron, L.
(2013) A re-examination of understanding is seeing . Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1–2), 220–243.Google Scholar
Diaz-Vera, J.
(Ed.) (2015) Metaphor and Metonymy Across Time and Cultures. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V.
(2012) Cognitive linguistics. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3(2), 129–141.Google Scholar
Fabiszak, M. & Konat, B.
(2013) Zastosowanie korpusów językowych w językoznawstwie kognitywnym [The use of language corpora in cognitive linguistics]. In P. Stalmaszczyk (Ed.), Metodologie językoznawstwa: Ewolucja języka, Ewolucja teorii językoznawczych (pp. 131–142). Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.Google Scholar
Foolen, A.
(2017) The hand in figurative thought and language. In Athanasiadou, A. (Ed.), Studies in Figurative Thought and Language (pp. 179–198). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fortescue, M.
(2001) Thoughts about thought. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1), 15–39.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fulkerson, M.
(2014a) The First Sense: A Philosophical Study of Human Touch. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014b) What Counts As Touch? In D. Stokes, M. Matthen, & S. Biggs (Ed.) Perception and Its Modalities (pp. 191–204). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.
(1999) Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world. In R. W. Gibbs & G. J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 146–166). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hatwell, Y., Streri, A. & Gentaz, E.
(Eds.) (2003) Touching for Knowing: Cognitive Pychology of Haptic Manual Perception. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hertenstein, M. J.
(Ed.) (2011) The Handbook of Touch: Neuroscience, Behavioral, and Health Perspectives. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Heylen, K., Tummers, J. & Geeraerts, D.
(2008) Methodological issues in corpus-based cognitive linguistics. In G. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (Eds.) Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems (pp. 91–128). Berlin and New York: de Gruyter Mouton.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. A.
(2015) Cognitive Linguistics in the Year 2015. Cognitive Semantics, 3(1), 131–154.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jäkel, O.
(1995) The metaphorical conception of mind: “Mental activity is manipulation”. In Taylor, J. R. & MacLaury, R. E. (Eds.), Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World (pp. 197–229). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jelec, A.
(2014) Are Abstract Concepts Like Dinosaur Feathers?. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.Google Scholar
Johansson Falck, M., & Gibbs, R. W.
(2012) Embodied motivations for metaphorical meanings. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(2), 251–272.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jonas, H.
(1954) The nobility of sight. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 14, 507–519.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
(2005) Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (2nd Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2015) Where Metaphors Come From. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B.
(2012) Cognitive corpus studies: A new qualitative & quantitative agenda for contrasting languages. MFU Connexion. A Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 29–63.Google Scholar
Macpherson, F.
(Ed.) (2011a) The Senses: Classic and Contemporary Philosophical Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2011b) Individuating the Senses. In F. Macpherson (Ed.), The Senses: Classic and Contemporary Philosophical Perspectives (pp. 3–43). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matthen, M.
(2015) The Individuation of the Senses. In M. Matthen (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Perception (pp. 567–586). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McEnery, T. & Hardie, A.
(2012) Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M.
(1945) Phénoménologie de la perception. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Murphy, G. L.
(1996) On metaphoric representation, Cognition, 60, 173–204.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pecher, D. & Zwaan, R. A.
(2005) Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pęzik, P.
(2013) Paradygmat Dystrybucyjny w Badaniach Frazeologicznych. Powtarzalność, Reprodukcja i Idiomatyzacja [Distributional Paradigm in Phraseological Research. Repetitivity, Reproduction, and Idiomatization]. In P. Stalmaszczyk (Ed.), Metodologie Językoznawstwa: Ewolucja Języka, Ewolucja Teorii Językoznawczych (pp. 143–160). Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.Google Scholar
(2014) Graph-Based Analysis of Collocational Profiles. In V. Jesenšek & P. Grzybek (Eds.), Phraseologie Im Wörterbuch und Korpus/Phraseology in Dictionaries and Corpora (pp. 227–243). Maribor/Bielsko-Biała/Budapest/Kansas/Praha: Filozofska Fakulteta.Google Scholar
Pragglejaz Group
(2007) MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Proske, U. & Gandevia, S. C.
(2012) The Proprioceptive Senses: Their Roles in Signaling Body Shape, Body Position and Movement, and Muscle Force. Physiological Reviews, 92, 1651–1697.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Przepiórkowski, A., Bańko, M., Górski, R. L. & Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B.
(Eds) (2012) Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego. Warszawa: PWN.Google Scholar
Radman, Z.
(Ed.) (2013) The Hand, an Organ of the Mind. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ratcliffe, M.
(2013) Touch and the Sense of Reality. In Radman, Z. (Ed.), The Hand, an Organ of the Mind (pp. 131–157). Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Semino, E. & Heywood, J. & Short, M.
(2004) Methodological problems in the analysis of metaphors in a corpus conversations about cancer. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1271–1294.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A.
(2006a) Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. In A. Stefanowitsch & T. S. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy (pp. 1–17). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2006b) Words and their metaphors: A corpus-based approach. In A. Stefanowitsch & T. S. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy (pp. 63–105). Berlin and New York: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Szwedek, A.
(2000) Senses, perception and metaphors (of Object and Objectification). In S. Puppel & K. Dziubalska-Kołaczyk (Eds.), Multibus vocibus de lingua (pp. 143–153). Poznań: Wydział Neofilologii UAM.Google Scholar
(2011) The ultimate source domain. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(2), 341–366.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) The nature of domains and the relationships between them in metaphorization. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 342–374.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E.
(1990) From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trim, R.
(2011) Metaphor and the historical evolution of conceptual mapping. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trojszczak, M.
(2016) Selected aspects of conceptualization of ‘insight’ in English and Polish. In I. Czwenar, D. Gonigroszek & A. Stanecka (Eds.), Foreign Languages and Cultures: Contemporary Contexts (pp. 57–68). NWP: Piotrków Trybunalski.Google Scholar
(2017a) Problem solving in English and Polish – a cognitive study of selected metaphorical conceptualisations. In P. Pęzik & J. T. Waliński (Eds.), Language, Corpora, and Cognition (pp. 201–220). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2017b) On “paying attention”: The objectification of attention in English and Polish. In W. Wachowski, Z. Kövecses & M. Borodo (Eds.), Zooming In: Micro-Scale Perspectives on Cognition, Translation and Cross-Cultural Communication (pp. 81–100). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Tummers, J., Heylen, K. & Geeraerts, D.
(2005) Usage-based approaches in Cognitive Linguistics: A technical state of the art. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1,(2), 225–261.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Waliński, J. T.
(2014) Complementarity of Space and Time in Distance Representations: A Corpus-based Study (2nd Ed.). Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Xiao, R.
(2008) Well-known and influential corpora. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: An International Handbook (pp. 383–457). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar