Analysing Language and Multimodal Discourse by Means of the NEAR-FAR Image Schema
Abstract
Focusing on convergent evidence for the conceptual nature of metaphors that take the near–far image schema as their source domain, such as: similarity is closeness, difference is distance, affection is proximity and emotional distance is physical distance, the application of near–far is discussed not only in the context of linguistic, but also multimodal practice. Results of a number of experimental studies are presented as another kind of convergent evidence for the psychological reality of these conventional metaphors and of the near–far schema. It is concluded that this schema is a reliable and useful research tool that cognitive linguists have at their disposal. In the Postscriptum, the framing of the Covid-19 pandemic in terms of “social distancing” is briefly considered in the context of both the social distance is physical distance and affection is proximity metaphors.
Keywords
conceptual metaphor, polysemy, demonstrative pronoun, gesture, verbo-pictorial aphorism, social distance
References
Blomberg, J. (2017). Non-actual motion in language and experience. In: I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (ed.), Motion and space across languages. Theory and applications (205–227). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bogardus, E.S. (1933). A social distance scale, Sociology and Social Research, 17, 265–271.
Boot, I., Pecher, D. (2010). Similarity is closeness: Metaphorical mapping in a conceptual task, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63/5, 942–954.
Casasanto, D. (2008). Similarity and proximity: When does close in space mean close in mind?, Memory and Cognition, 36/6, 1047–1056. DOI: 10.3758/MC.36.6.1047
Cienki, A. (1997). Some properties and groupings of image schemas. In: M. Verspoor, K.D. Lee, E. Sweetser (eds.), Lexical and syntactic constructions and the construction of meaning (3–15). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Coëgnarts, M., Kravanja, P. (2012). Embodied visual meaning: Image schemas in film. Projections, 6/2, 84–101. DOI: 10.3167/proj.2012.060206
Dancygier, B., Vandelanotte, L. (2017). Image-schematic scaffolding in textual and visual artefacts, Journal of Pragmatics, 122, 91–106.
Dąbrowska, E. (1997). Cognitive semantics and the Polish dative. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Evans, V., Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Forceville, Ch. (2006). Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research. In: G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibàñez (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (379–402). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Forceville, Ch. (2014). Relevance theory as model for analyzing visual and multimodal communication. In: D. Machin (ed.), Visual communication (51–70). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Forceville, Ch. (2016). The force and balance schemas in journey metaphor animations. In: C. Fernandes (ed.), Multimodality and performance (8–22). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Górska, E. (2014a). The up/down orientation in language and music. In: M. Brenzinger, I. Kraska-Szlenk (eds.), The body in language. Comparative studies of linguistic embodiment (177–195). Leiden: Brill.
Górska, E. (2014b). Dynamiczne podejście do metafory, Prace Filologiczne, 64/2, 109–122.
Górska, E. (2017). The path schema in verbo-pictorial aphorisms on life. In: P. Łozowski, A. Głaz (eds.), Route 66: From deep structures to surface meanings. A festschrift for Henryk Kardela on his 66th birthday (219–235). Lublin: Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Press.
Górska, E. (2019). Spatialization of abstract concepts in cartoons. A case study of verbo-pictorial image-schematic metaphors. In: I. Navarro i Ferrando (ed.), Current approaches to metaphor analysis in discourse (279–294). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI:10.1515/9783110629460-013
Górska, E. (2020). Understanding abstract concepts across modes in multimodal discourse. A cognitive linguistic approach. London/New York: Routledge. DOI:10.4324/9780429282737
Grady, J.E. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Hampe, B. (2005a). Image schemas in cognitive linguistics: Introduction. In: B. Hampe (ed.) (2005b), From perception to meaning. Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (1–12). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hampe, B. (ed.) (2005b). From perception to meaning. Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Heine, B. (1997). Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hendricks, R.K., Demjén, Z., Semino, E., Boroditsky, L. (2018). Emotional implications of metaphor: Consequences of metaphor framing for mindset about cancer, Metaphor and Symbol, 33/4, 267–279. DOI: 10.1080/10926488.2018.1549835
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of imagination, reason, and meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, M. (2007). The meaning of the body. Aesthetics of human understanding. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kimmel, M. (2009). Analyzing image schemas in literature, Cognitive Semiotics, 5, 159–188.
Kövecses, Z. (2000). Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Langacker, R.W. (1986). Abstract motion, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 12, 455–471.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R.W. (1993). Reference-point constructions, Cognitive Linguistics, 4/1, 1–38.
Langacker, R.W. (2009). Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lee S., Schwarz, N. (2014). Framing love: When it hurts to think we were made for each other, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 61–67. DOI:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.04.007
Matlock, T. (2006). Depicting fictive motion in drawings. In: J. Luchjenbroers (ed.), Cognitive linguistics investigations. Across languages, fields and philosophical boundaries (67–85). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Matlock, T. (2010). Abstract motion is no longer abstract, Language and Cognition, 2/2, 243–260.
Matlock, T. (2017). Metaphor, simulation, and fictive motion. In: B. Dancygier (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (477–489). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Matsumoto, Y. (1996). Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs, Cognitive Linguistics, 7/2, 183–226
Matthews, J.L., Matlock, T. (2011). Understanding the link between spatial distance and social distance, Social Psychology, 42/3, 185–192. DOI: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000062
Mittelberg, I. (2010). Geometric and image-schematic patterns in gesture space. In: V. Evans, P. Chilton (eds.), Language, cognition, and space: The state of the art and new directions (351–385). London: Equinox.
Radden, G., Matthis, E. (2002). Why similar to and different from?. In: H. Cuyckens, G. Radden (eds.), Perspectives on prepositions (233–255). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Rybarczyk, M. (2015). Demonstratives and possessives with attitude. An intersubjectively-oriented empirical study. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Talmy, L. (1996). Fictive motion in language and ‘ception’, In: P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel, M. Garrett (eds.), Language and space (211–276). Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.
Thibodeau, P.H., Matlock, T., Flusberg, S.J. (2019). The role of metaphor in communication and thought, Language and Linguistics Compass, 13, 1–18. DOI:10.1111/lnc3.12327
Sweetser, E. (1987). Metaphorical models of thought and speech: A comparison of historical directions and metaphorical mappings in the two domains, Proceedings of Annual Meetings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 13, 446–459.
Williams, L.E., Bargh, J. A. (2008). Keeping one’s distance: The influence of spatial distance cues on affect and evaluation, Psychological Science, 19/3, 302–308. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02084.x.
Winter, B., Matlock, T. (2013). Reasoning about similarity and proximity, Metaphor and Symbol, 28, 1–14.
Winter, B., Matlock, T. (2017). Primary metaphors are both cultural and embodied. In: B. Hampe (ed.), Metaphor, embodied cognition, and discourse (99–115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wiseman, R. (2014). Social distance in hunter-gather settlement sites: A conceptual metaphor in material culture, Metaphor and Symbol, 29/2, 129-143. DOI: 10.1080/10926488.2014.890469
Wiseman, R. (2016). Social distance in settled communities. The conceptual metaphor, social distance is physical distance, in action, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 23,1023-1052. DOI: 10.1007/s10816-015-9256-9
Data sources
Kapusta, J. (2014). Plus-minus. Podręcznik do myślenia. Poznań: Zysk i S-ka.
med – Macmillan English dictionary for advanced learners (First edition) 2002, Oxford: Macmillan.
