Abstract
The present study investigates the scope of metaphors evoked by the culinary term bake in American English and its Peninsular Spanish equivalent hornear. The data analysed was extracted from the Corpus of Contemporary American English and the Corpus del Español: Web/Dialects. The target frames evoked and the frame elements involved in the metaphorical mappings were used to identify and analyse the metaphorical expressions. Furthermore, the type of process and thematic roles performed by the frame elements in the conceptual projections were examined to make divergences explicit. Our results suggest that metaphor diversity is broader in American English, as the source frame evoked by bake expresses metaphorically a larger number of target frames than hornear in Peninsular Spanish. Consequently, these lexical items are not exact equivalents. Each language seems to place the experiential focus on different frame elements and thematic roles to create their metaphorical mappings, which points to differential cognitive preferences between both cultures.
Funding source: Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, State Research Agency 10.13039/501100011033
Award Identifier / Grant number: PID2020-118349GB-I00
Acknowlegments
The authors are very grateful to two anonymous referees for their sagacious comments and useful suggestions. Funding for the research on which this article is based has been provided by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (State Research Agency) project no. PID2020-118349GB-I00.
References
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1992. Frames, concepts and conceptual fields. In Adrienne Lehrer & Eva Feder Kittay (eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts. New essays in semantic and lexical organization, 21–74. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2012. Corpus-based and corpus-driven analyses of language variation and use. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 195–223. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0008Search in Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 600 million words, 1990-present. Available at: https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/.Search in Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2016. Corpus del Español: Two billion words, 21 countries. Available at: http://www.corpusdelespanol.org/web-dial/. (Web/Dialects).Search in Google Scholar
Deignan, Alice. 2005. Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.10.1075/celcr.6Search in Google Scholar
Deignan, Alice. 2008. Corpus linguistics and metaphor. In Raymond W. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 280–294. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511816802.018Search in Google Scholar
Deignan, Alice. 2015. MIP, the corpus and dictionaries: what makes for the best metaphor analysis? Metaphor and the Social World 5(1). 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.5.1.09dei.Search in Google Scholar
Deignan, Alice & Elena Semino. 2010. Corpus techniques for metaphor analysis. In Lynn Cameron & Robert Maslen (eds.), Metaphor analysis. Research practice in Applied Linguistics, Social Sciences and the Humanities, 161–179. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of functional grammar. Part 1. The structure of the clause. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar
Esbrí-Blasco, Montserrat. 2020. “Cooking in the mind”: A frame-based contrastive study of culinary metaphors in American English and Peninsular Spanish. Castelló de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I Doctoral Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan. 2007. A glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, and Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.10.1515/9780748629862Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1977. The case for case reopened. In Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 8: Grammatical relations, 59–81. New York, NY: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368866_005Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame Semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00424-7Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6. 222–254.Search in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1999. Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world. In Raymond W. Gibbs & Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics, 145–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.175.09gibSearch in Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide. 2013. The relationship between conceptual metaphor and culture. Intercultural Pragmatics 10(2). 315–339. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2013-0014.Search in Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2005. Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511614408Search in Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2008. Universality and variation in the use of metaphor. In Nils-Lenard Johannesson & David C. Minugh (eds.), Stockholm Metaphor Festivals (SMF), 51–74. Stockholm: Stockholm University.Search in Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2010. Metaphor: A practical introduction, 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2012. Metaphorical creativity in discourse. In Mario Brdar, Ida Raffaelli & Milena Zic Fuchs (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics between universality and variation, 253–270. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2015. Where metaphors come from. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2017. Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics 28(2). 321–347. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0052.Search in Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2019. Some consequences of multi-level view of metaphor. In Ignasi Navarro i Ferrando (ed.), Current approaches to metaphor analysis in discourse, 19–34. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110629460-002Search in Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2020. Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108859127Search in Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2022. Extended CMT and the dynamic systems theory of metaphor. In Herbert L. Colston, Teenie Matlock & Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Dynamism in metaphor and beyond, 131–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/milcc.9.07kovSearch in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 2003. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2013. Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Littlemore, Jeannette. 2019. Metaphors in the mind: Sources of variation in embodied metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108241441Search in Google Scholar
McEnery, Tony & Andrew Hardie. 2012. Corpus Linguistics: method, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199276349.013.0024Search in Google Scholar
Mischler, James J. 2013. Metaphor across time and conceptual space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/clscc.3Search in Google Scholar
Newman, John. 2011. Corpora and cognitive linguistics. Brazilian Journal of Applied Linguistics 11(2). 521–559. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1984-63982011000200010.Search in Google Scholar
Ogarkova, Anna & Cristina Soriano. 2014. Variation within universals: The ‘metaphorical profile’ approach to the study of ANGER concepts in English, Russian and Spanish. In Andreas Musolff, Fiona MacArthur & Giulio Pagani (eds.), Metaphor and intercultural communication, 93–116. London: Bloomsbury.10.5040/9781472593610.ch-005Search in Google Scholar
Pragglejazz Group. 2007. MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22(1). 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2201_1.Search in Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. & Alicia Galera Masegosa. 2014. Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective [Human Cognitive Processing 45]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.45Search in Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef, Michael Ellsworth, Miriam R. Petruck, Christopher R. Johnson & Jan Scheffczyk. 2010. FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Berkeley, CA: International Computer Science Institute.Search in Google Scholar
Semino, Elena. 2017. Corpus linguistics and metaphor. In Barbara Dancygier (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 463–476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316339732.029Search in Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Soares da Silva, Augusto. 2021. Measuring the impact of (non)figurativity in the cultural conceptualization of emotions in the two main national varieties of Portuguese. In Augusto Soares da Silva (ed.), Figurative language – intersubjectivity and usage, vol. 11, 387–438. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/ftl.11.13silSearch in Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2006. Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. In Anatol Stefanowitsch & Stefan T. Gries (eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy, 1–16. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110199895Search in Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan T. Gries (eds.). 2006. Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110199895Search in Google Scholar
Sullivan, Karen. 2013. Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.14Search in Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620904Search in Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2002. Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Tuggy, David. 2007. Schematicity. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 82–116. NewYork: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0004Search in Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511610578Search in Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. 2006. Semantic macro-roles and language processing. In Ina Bornkessel, Matthias Schlesewsky, Bernard Comrie & Angela D. Friederici (eds.), Semantic role universals and argument linking, 165–263. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. & Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: structure, meaning & function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166799Search in Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1974. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY/London, UK: Cornell University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Yu, Ning. 2008. Metaphor from body and culture. In Raymond W. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 247–261. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511816802.016Search in Google Scholar
Yu, Ning. 2012. Metaphorical expressions of anger and happiness in English and Chinese. In Patrick Hanks & Rachel Giora (eds.), Metaphor and figurative language, (Literary and Cross-Cultural Perspectives 3), 328–359. New York and London: Routledge.10.1207/s15327868ms1002_1Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
