Menu: Home :: go to Journal :: switch to Russian :: switch to English
You are here: all Journals and Issues→ Journal→ Issue→ Article

COGNITIVE-RELEVANT DIFFERENCES IN SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES OF IDENTITY AND SIMILE AT VERBALIZATION OF INTEROCEPTIVE SENSATIONS

Annotation

The main peculiarities of the syntactic structure of utterances which contain descriptions of the so-called interoceptive sensations are considered. Interoceptive sensations are commonly defined as signals located in the internal milieu of the body and characterizing its physiological state. Unlike exteroceptive sensations (visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, and tactile), interoceptive sensations remain understudied in the Humanities in general, and in Linguistics in particular. Meanwhile, they are of considerable interest to linguists due to the specificity of ways of naming. The basic feature of interoceptive vocabulary is metaphoricity, as there are no special terms to define specifically this type of sensation. The metaphorical character of naming, however, does not imply that interoceptive sensations are verbalized exclusively through the classical metaphorical structure A is B. On the contrary, the most commonly used construction is that of classical simile (A is like B). The functions of both constructions, their semantic and cognitive load and reveals the factors that determine the choice of this or that construction are described. It was concluded that the classical metaphor represents the choice of a ready-made cognitive decision out of all potentially possible, whereas simile reflects the process of searching for the optimal cognitive decision in the situation when the interoceptive sensation is new for the experiencer.

Keywords

interoceptive sensation; metaphor; simile

Full-text in one file

Download

UDC

81.373.612.2

Pages

95-100

References

1. Nagornaya A.V. Orudiynaya metafora kak sredstvo ob"ektivatsii vnutri telesnogo opyta // Vestnik Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. A.S. Pushkina. 2012. № 2 (T. 7). S. 84-97. 2. Nagornaya A.V. Smeshannaya metafora kak sredstvo verbalizatsii interotseptivnogo opyta // Vestnik Orlovskogo universiteta. Seriya: Novye gumanitarnye issledovaniya. 2013. № 5 (34). S. 146-152. 3. Nagornaya A. Metaphor and the Inner Body: The story of a glorious conquest // The Stock-holm 2013 Metaphor Festival: Abstracts. Stockholm, 2013. P. 56-57. 4. Croft W., Cruse D.A. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge, 2004. 5. Steen G.J. Finding metaphor in Grammar and usage: A methodological analysis of theory and research. Amsterdam, 2007. 6. Gentner D. Bootstrapping the mind: Analogical processes and symbol systems // Cognitive Science. 2010. № 34. 7. Bowdle B.F., Gentner D. The career of metaphor // Psychological Review. 2005. Vol. 112. № 1. P. 193-216. 8. Gentner D., Colhoun J. Analogical processes in human thinking and learning // Towards a theory of thinking: Building blocks for a conceptual framework. Berlin; Heidelberg, 2010. P. 35-48. 9. Efremova O.V. Sub"ektivnaya semantika intratseptsii pri ipokhondricheskikh sindromakh // Psikhologiya sub"ektivnoy semantiki intratseptsii. M., 1997. Ch. 1. 10. Melzack R., Wall P.D. The challenge of pain. N. Y., 1996. 11. Tay D. Metaphor in Psychotherapy: A descrip-tive and prescriptive analysis. Amsterdam, 2013. 12. Gregory M.E., Mergler N.L. Metaphor comprehension: In search of literal truth, possible sense, and metaphoricity // Metaphor and symbolic activity. 1990. № 5 (3). P. 151-173. 13. Semino E. Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge, 2008.

Received

2015-03-02

Section of issue

Language. cognition. culture

Для корректной работы сайта используйте один из современных браузеров. Например, Firefox 55, Chrome 60 или более новые.