Personifying conceptualizations of visual, auditory, and olfactory percepts in English and Hungarian An empirical study
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The study reports on an empirical investigation of personifications with visual, auditory, and olfactory target domains in Hungarian and English. Its primary aim is to uncover how this type of conceptual metaphor contributes to the linguistic conceptualization of the sensations and sensory stimuli connected to these three modalities. The data were collected from the Hungarian and English subcorpora of the TenTen corpus family: the nearly 7000 contextual occurrences of 9 Hungarian and 9 English keywords were then manually filtered and annotated. Following Dorst–Mulder–Steen (2011), the annotation distinguishes between novel personifications, personifications with metonymy, conventionalized personifications, and default personifications, but the scope of analysis is extended to further conceptualizing strategies that are closely related to the mapping in question: animization, figurative movement, and the representation of sensory stimuli as active agents. In both languages, the visual keywords produced the fewest personifications; audition and olfaction show similar frequencies in Hungarian, but olfaction stands out in English.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Bagli, Marco 2021. Tastes We Live By. The Linguistic Conceptualisation of Taste in English. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110630404
Baicchi, Annalisa – Rémi Digonnet – Jodi L. Sandford (szerk.) 2018. Sensory Perceptions in Language, Embodiment and Epistemology. (Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics 42) Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91277-6
Bechtel, Fritz 1879. Über die Bezeichnungen der sinnlichen Wahrnehmungen in den indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar: H. Böhlau.
Bergen, Benjamin K. 2012. Louder Than Words. The New Science of How the Mind Makes Meaning. New York: Basic Books.
Bergen, Benjamin K. 2015. Embodiment, simulation and meaning. In Nick Riemer (szerk.) The Routledge Handbook of Semantics. London, New York: Routledge. 142–157.
Bowdle, Brian F. – Dedre Gentner 2005. The career of metaphor. Psychological Review 112/1:193–216. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193
Citron, Francesca M. M. – Adele E. Goldberg 2014. Metaphorical sentences are more emotionally engaging than their literal counterparts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 26/11:2585–2595. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00654
Citron, Francesca M. M. – Mollie Lee – Nora Michaelis 2020. Affective and psycholinguistic norms for German conceptual metaphors (COMETA). Behavior Research Methods 52/3:1056–1072. doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01300-7
Dancygier, Barbara – Eve Sweetser 2014. Figurative Language. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Digonnet, Rémi 2016. Métaphore et olfaction: une approche cognitive. Paris: Honoré Champion.
Digonnet, Rémi 2018a. The linguistic expression of smells: From lack to abundance? In Annalisa Baicchi – Rémi Digonnet – Jodi L. Sandford (szerk.) Sensory Perceptions in Language, Embodiment and Epistemology. (Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics) Cham: Springer. 177–191. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91277-6_10
Digonnet, Rémi (szerk.) 2018b. Pour une linguistique sensorielle. Paris: Honoré Champion.
Dorst, Aletta G. 2011. Personification in discourse: Linguistic forms, conceptual structures and communicative functions. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 20/2:113–135. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947010395522
Dorst, Aletta G. – Gerben Mulder – Gerard J. Steen 2011. Recognition of personifications in fiction by non-expert readers. Metaphor and the Social World 1/2:174–200. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.1.2.04dor
Galac, Ádám 2020. Semantic change of basic perception verbs in English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, and Hungarian. Argumentum 16:125–146. doi:10.34103/ARGUMENTUM/2020/9.
Geeraerts, Dirk 2015. Sense individuation. In Nick Riemer (szerk.) The Routledge Handbook of Semantics. London, New York: Routledge. 233–247.
Gentner, Dedre – Brian F. Bowdle 2001. Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol 16/3–4:223–247. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678896
Grimm, Jacob 1848. Die fünf Sinne. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 6:1–15.
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jędrzejowski, Łukasz – Przemysław Staniewski (szerk.) 2021. The Linguistics of Olfaction: Typological and Diachronic Approaches to Synchronic Diversity. (Typological Studies in Language 131) Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.131
Johnson, Mark 1987. The Body in the Mind. The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
Julich, Nina 2019. Why do we understand music as moving? The metaphorical basis of musical motion revisited. In Laura J. Speed – Carolyn O’Meara – Lila San Roque – Asifa Majid (szerk.) Perception Metaphors. (Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 19) Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 165–184. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.09jul
Kövecses, Zoltán 2000. Metaphor and Emotion. Language, Culture, and Body in Human Feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kövecses, Zoltán 2019. Perception and metaphor: The case of smell. In Laura J. Speed – Carolyn O’Meara – Lila San Roque – Asifa Majid (szerk.) Perception Metaphors. (Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 19) Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 327–346. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.16kov
Krejcie, Robert V. – Daryle W. Morgan 1970. Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement 30/3:607–610. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308
Lakoff, George – Mark Johnson 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George – Mark Johnson 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, George – Mark Turner 1989. More than Cool Reason. A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
MacKay, Donald G. 1986. Prototypicality among metaphors: On the relative frequency of personification and spatial metaphors in literature written for children versus adults. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 1/2:87–107. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0102_1
Majid, Asifa – Stephen C. Levinson 2011. The senses in language and culture. The Senses and Society 6/1:5–18. doi: https://doi.org/10.2752/174589311X12893982233551
Majid, Asifa – Seán G. Roberts – Ludy Cilissen – Karen Emmorey – Brenda Nicodemus et al. 2018. Differential coding of perception in the world’s languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115/45:11369–11376. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1720419115
Pragglejaz Group 2007. MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22/1:1–39. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752
[ÉKSz.2] Pusztai Ferenc (szerk.) 2003. Magyar értelmező kéziszótár. 2., átdolgozott kiadás. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Rundell, Michael – Gwyneth Fox (szerk.) 2002. Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. Oxford: Macmillan Education. https://www.macmillandictionary.com/.
Sájter Laura 2008. Megszemélyesítés. In Szathmári István (szerk.) Alakzatlexikon. A retorikai és stilisztikai alakzatok kézikönyve. (A magyar nyelv kézikönyvei 15) Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó. 383–388.
Simon Gábor 2018. A megszemélyesítés szemantikai sémái József Attila leíró költeményeiben. Magyar Nyelvőr 142/3:328–354.
Speed, Laura J. – Asifa Majid 2020. Grounding language in the neglected senses of touch, taste, and smell. Cognitive Neuropsychology 37/5–6:363–392. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2019.1623188
Speed, Laura J. – Carolyn O’Meara – Lila San Roque – Asifa Majid (szerk.) 2019. Perception Metaphors. (Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 19) Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19
Steen, Gerard 2008. The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 23/4:213–241. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480802426753
Steen, Gerard J. – Aletta G. Dorst – J. Berenike Herrmann – Anna Kaal – Tina Krennmayr – Trijntje Pasma 2010. A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU. (Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 14) Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14
Stockwell, Peter 2002. Cognitive Poetics. An Introduction. London, New York: Routledge.
Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 54) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904
Tolcsvai Nagy Gábor 2017. Jelentéstan. In Tolcsvai Nagy Gábor (szerk.) Nyelvtan. (A magyar nyelv kézikönyvtára) Budapest: Osiris Kiadó. 207–502.
Winter, Bodo 2019. Sensory Linguistics. Language, perception and metaphor. (Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 20) Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.20
Wood, Francis A. 1899. The semasiology of words for „smell” and „see”. PMLA 14/3:299–346. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/456640
Yu, Ning 2015. Embodiment, culture, and language. In Farzad Sharifian (szerk.) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture. (Routledge Handbooks in Linguistics) London, New York: Routledge. 227–239.