Browse results

Series:

Judit Baranyiné Kóczy

Abstract

Within the issue of embodiment (Brenzinger and Kraska-Szlenk 2014, Yu 2009, Maalej and Yu 2011, Sharifian et. al. 2008) this paper investigates how THINKING is conceptualised in Hungarian in relation to HEAD, i.e., as represented in the expressions of fej ‘head’ in the Hungarian National Corpus. It is evidenced that, in accordance with the Western tradition, THE HEAD IS THE SEAT OF INTELLECT/THINKING is a significant conceptualization in Hungarian. Within corpus analysis, two main themes are outlined: metaphorical expressions of THOUGHT and those of the activity of THINKING. It is highlighted that there are numerous different types of conceptualizations in Hungarian to refer to thought, each pointing out some distinctive aspect of thought and thinking. It is evidenced that thought can be imagined as either inanimate or animate objects, and in most conceptualizations THE HEAD-AS-CONTAINER metaphor has an overwhelming influence. Within THOUGHTS AS INANIMATE ENTITIES, the basic metaphors are: THOUGHTS AS ENTITIES IN A DRUG STORE, THOUGHTS AS THREADS, THOUGHTS AS MOVING ENTITIES and THOUGHTS AS NOISE/MUSIC, while in THOUGHTS AS ANIMATE ENTITIES are conceived as HUMANS, ANIMALS or PLANTS. It has been shown that thoughts, ideas, data and memories are imagined as entities that exist (or live) in the head.

The second part of the paper focuses on the metaphors of THINKING. Each conceptualizations (THINKING AS CRACKING ONE’S HEAD, THINKING AS A WORKING MACHINE, THINKING AS MARKING A WOODEN BOARD) reflect on different aspects of the intellect. The conceptualizations unfolded can be regarded as cultural conceptualizations (Sharifian 2011, 2017) because they are specific to the cognition of Hungarian people.

Series:

Yongxian Luo

Abstract

This paper offers an analysis of the Chinese body-part terms for ‘head’ and its related parts ‘brain’ and “neck” from a conceptual and cognitive perspective. It examines their semantic and morphological functions through the metonymic and metaphorical extensions which display both universal and language-specific tendencies derived from human experiences characteristic of this particular part of the body. Discussions focus on the historical development of these terms and how they manifest themselves in the semantic and cognitive template that is framed by the sensorimotor in the contour of the body. Comparison is made to several languages in the surrounding regions to provide cross-linguistic perspective in this semantic domain. The grammaticalization path of these body part terms is explored, as are the cognitive bases of their conceptual mapping and patterns of cognitive transfer. The study aims to contribute to a better understanding of how potentially universal features and cultural factors interact with each other in language and cognition.

Series:

Filiz Mutlu, Aysel Kapan, Ali Yagiz Sen, Hilal Yıldırım-Gündoğdu and Aslı Göksel

Abstract

Previous studies on body-part metaphors in Turkish investigate their cultural relevance, etymology, or semantic properties (cf. Baş 2015). Aksan (2011) focusing particularly on ‘head’, analyses metaphors that are either compounds or are sentential. The present chapter is the first on phrasal constructions that contain body parts in Turkish, in particular, ‘head’. Turkish has five terms for ‘head’, baş, kafa, kelle, ser, and tepe, all of which can form idiomatic expressions. Based on a survey of 350 phrasal idioms, we observe that especially idioms formed with the first two, baş and kafa are i) very productive, and ii) display a number of correlated asymmetries. These asymmetries pertain to the notions of internal vs. external structures, living entities vs. objects and mechanisms, body/self/emotion vs. mind, neutral vs. marked contexts, and to various other categories. Emotion vs. thought as one of these dichotomies is uniquely captured by two different terms for the same body part, ‘head’, whereas this very same dichotomy is, in other languages, expressed through different body parts (heart vs. head, cf. Maalej & Yu 2011).

Series:

Iwona Kraska-Szlenk

Abstract

This chapter focuses on cross-linguistic patterning of metonymies and metonymic-metaphoric chains involved in mapping from the body part ‘head’ onto mental and social activity domains which particularly favor such conceptualizations due to high expressiveness of figurative “embodied” language. It will be demonstrated that certain metonymies are cross-linguistically very common, e.g. HEAD FOR PERSON, HEAD FOR RULER/IMPORTANT PERSON, HEAD FOR REASON/INTELLIGENCE, while others are encountered only in specific cultural settings, e. g. HEAD FOR A KIN, HEAD FOR LANGUAGE. In addition, many conceptualizations are based on a common general schema which is modified in a culture-specific way. In general terms, the findings contribute to research on metonymy and shed light on the interplay of embodiment, cognitive universals and specific cultural models.

Series:

Abinet Sime

Abstract

Amharic (a Semitic language spoken in Ethiopia) has two words for ‘head’: ras and qəl. Through Intra-field metonymic transfer, ras has come to refer to the HAIR and BRAIN of humans. It also refers to a PILLOW (or headrest) through Inter-field metonymic transfer. Compound words for headteacher, headwaters, headlines, and head of state are formed with ras as a first member. In əndä-ras-e (like-self-my) ‘regent’ ras is a second member. Ras on its own (as the highest military and civil rank below the crown) was used to refer to the head of an army. This word has also found its way into the English language through Rastafarianism. In some Amharic idioms and proverbs that involve ras, the HEAD is conceived as a servant who thinks rationally and leads carefully. The rest of the BODY (below the HEAD), in turn, is considered as a master (and owner) who supports and controls the HEAD. Moreover, ras has grammaticalized into intensive genitive, intensive reflexive, reflexive, reciprocal, independent and demonstrative pronouns. First through an Inter-field metaphoric transfer (GOURD > SKULL) and then through an Intra-field metonymic transfer (SKULL > HEAD), qəl has come to refer to an individual person (HEAD > PERSON). Moreover, qəl has further grammaticalized into intensive reflexive, concessive, adversative and focus markers.