Abstract
The chapter elaborates on ‘an embodiment via body parts’ analysis of mouth and its meronymy in two typologically distinct and genealogically distantly related languages, Bulgarian and English. Adopting a Cultural Linguistics framework, the analysis focuses on figurative expressions as ‘rich points’ and delves into the specificities of figurativity underwriting the linguistic data as parts of flexible cultural conceptualisations. The analyses based on frame semantics target a discussion of the diversity of metaphors and metonymies involving mouth, lips, tongue and teeth in the languages of the two cultural groups. It transpires that in English communication as embodied by the mouth and its meronymic components are conceptualised as socially and individually regulated activity, involving premeditation and self-reflection, while in Bulgarian the embodiment of communication suggests a more leisurely and unselfconscious interactive behaviour. The analysis proper is preceded by specification of the conceptual and analytical tools employed within the general comprehensive framework of Cultural Linguistics as an innovative, multidisciplinary approach to meaning in human life and is followed by a prospectus concerning viable venues for future research.
The human body is the best picture of the human soul.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
I express my gratitude to an anonymous reviewer to whom I owe the analysis in terms of dynamicity. According to the said reviewer it is the exchange precisely that is profiled in Bulgarian (and other Slavic languages for that matter e.g. Pol. z ust do ust ‘from mouth to mouth’), while in English prominent are the less dynamic Instrument and Channel, encoded via by.
- 2.
Polytrope is used here as employed by Shore (1996) and Friedrich (1991) to identify cases in which it is extremely difficult to tease apart metaphors and metonymies and specify where metonymy stops and metaphor takes up in the chain of figurative transpositions. In Cognitive Linguistics the term metaphthonymy (Goossens 2003) has gained wider use in labelling instances of polyfunctional patterns of figurativity where the exact sequencing of metaphor and metonymy cannot be determined. The two terms are used interchangeably in the chapter.
- 3.
Chain metonymies and a series of metonymies are not coterminous. The former defines the case of single frame-based metonymies that correlate naturally, while the latter defines the presence of different metonymies not causally or naturally related in the same expression.
Primary Sources
All the linguistic data have been extracted manually from the following sources:
Ankova-Ničeva, K. (1993). New Phraseological dictionary of the Bulgarian Language. Sofia: Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski Publishing House” [In Bulgarian].
Ayto, John (Ed.). (2010). Oxford Dictionary of English Idioms (3rd ed.).
British National Corpus. http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/. Last accessed 10.12.2015.
Bulgarian National Corpus. http://search.dcl.bas.bg/. Last accessed 8.12.2015.
Collins Cobuild Idioms Dictionary. (2012) (3rd ed.).
Dictionary of the Bulgarian Language. Vol. I—XIV. Sofia: Academic Publishing House “Marin Drinov”/ Publishing House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences [In Bulgarian].
Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture. (2000). Pearson ESL; (3rd ed.).
Ničeva, K., S. Spasova-Mihaiylova, & Kr. Čolakova. 1974. Phraseological Dictionary of the Bulgarian Language. Vol. I and II. Sofia: Publishing House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences [In Bulgarian].
Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition on CD-ROM (v. 4.0.0.3). Oxford University Press (2009).
References
Alexieva, B. (2010). Implication and explication in English and Bulgarian. In B. Alexieva (Ed.), Interlingual asymmetry. Implication and explication in English and Bulgarian (pp. 83–243). Sofia: University Publishing House “St. Kliment Ohridski”.
Barcelona, A. (2011). Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics. Towards a consensus view (pp. 7–57). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Barsalou, L. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 22(6), 577–660.
Bergen, B. (2012). Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.
Blewitt, P. (1993). Taxonomic structure in lexical memory: The nature of developmental change. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development (Vol. 9, pp. 103–132). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2014). Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Everett, D. (2012). Language: The cultural tool. London: Profile Books.
Facchinetti, R. (2012). Introduction. In R. Facchinetti (Ed.), English dictionaries as cultural mines (pp. 1–7). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Fillmore, Ch. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 123–131).
Fillmore, Ch. (2006). Frame semantics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics. Basic readings (pp. 373–400). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fox, K. (2014). Watching the English. The hidden rules of English behaviour. London: Hodder.
Frank, R. (2015a). A complex adaptive systems approach to language, cultural schemas and serial metonymy: Charting the cognitive innovations of ‘fingers’ and ‘claws’ in Basque. In J. E. Díaz-Vera (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy across time and cultures. Perspectives on the sociohistorical linguistics of figurative language (pp. 65–95). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Frank, R. (2015b). A future agenda for research on language and culture. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 493–513). New York, London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.
Friedrich, P. (1991). Polytropy. In J. W. Fernandez (Ed.), Beyond metaphor: The theory of tropes in anthropology (pp. 17–55). Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Gallagher, Sh. (2005). How the body shapes the mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gibbs, R. (1999). Intentions in the experience of meaning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibson, J. (2015). The ecological approach to visual perception. New York, London: Psychology Press.
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–340.
Goossens, L. (1995). From three respectable horeses’ mouths: Metonymy and conventionalisation in a diachronically differentiated data base. In L. Goossens, P. Pauwels, B. Rudzka-Ostyn, A. Simon-Vandenbergen, & J. Vanparys (Eds.), By word of mouth: Metaphor, metonymy and linguistic action in a cognitive perspective (pp. 175–204). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Goossens, L. (2003). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 349–379). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grady, J. (2007). Metaphor. In Geeraerts, D. and Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, (pp. 187–213). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, M. (2008). What makes a body? The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 22(3), 159–169.
Kesckes, I. (2015). Language, culture and context. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 113–129). New York, London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.
Koch, P. (2001). Metonymy: unity in diversity. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 2, 201–244.
Lee, D. (1959). Codifications of reality: Lineal and nonlineal. In D. Lee (Ed.), Freedom and culture (pp. 105–120). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lizardo, O. (2015). Culture, cognition and embodiment. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (Vol. 5, pp. 576–581). Oxford: Elsevier.
Maalej, Z. (2008). The heart and cultural embodiment in Tunisian Arabic. In F. Sharifian, R. Dirven, N. Yu, & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Culture, body and language. Conceptualisations of internal body organs across cultures and languages (pp. 395–429). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Maalej, Z. & Yu, N. (2011). Introduction: Embodiment via body parts. In Z. Maalej & N. Yu (Eds.), Embodiment via body parts. Studies from various languages and cultures (pp. 1–23). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Nissen, U. K. (2011). Contrasting body parts: Metaphors and metonymies of MOUTH in English, Danish and Spanish. In Z. Maalej & N. Yu (Eds.), Embodiment via body parts. Studies from various languages and cultures (pp. 71–92). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Palmer, G. (1996). Toward a theory of cultural linguistics. Texas: University of Texas Press.
Panzarasa, P., & Jennings, N. (2006). Collective cognition and emergence in multi-agent systems. In R. Sun (Ed.), Cognition and multi-agent interaction (pp. 401–408). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paradis, C. (2011). Metonymization: A key mechanism in semantic change. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics. Towards a consensus view (pp. 61–89). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Peters, A. (1983). Units of language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Radden, G. (2004). The metonymic folk model of language. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & A. Kwiatkowska (Eds.), Imagery in language (pp. 543–565). Bern: Peter Lang.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F., & Galera-Masegosa, A. (2011). Going beyond metaphthonymy: Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value, 3(1), 1–29.
Sapir, E. (1958). The status of linguistics as a science. In D. G. Mandelbaum (Ed.), Sapir, Edward. 1958. Culture, language and personality (pp. 160–166). Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Sharifian, F. (2008). Conceptualizations of del ‘heart-stomach’ in Persian. In F. Sharifian, R. Dirven, N. Yu & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Culture, body, and language conceptualizations of internal body organs across cultures and languages (pp. 247–266). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sharifian, F. (2011a). Cultural linguistics. Inaugural professorial lecture. https://www.academia.edu/606529/CulturalLinguisticsFarzadSharifiansInauguralProfessorialLecture. Accessed February 15, 2016.
Sharifian, F. (2011b). Cultural conceptualisations and language. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sharifian, F. (2015). Cultural linguistics. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 473–493). New York, London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.
Sharifian, F., Dirven, R., Yu, N., & Niemeier, S. (Eds.). (2008). Culture, body and language. Conceptualisations of internal body organs across cultures and languages. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Shore, B. (1996). Culture in mind. cognition, culture, and the problem of meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sickinger, P. (2012). Mental models and linguistic cues: Investigating the interface between and mental representation across cultures. In 35th International LAUD Symposium. Cognitive psycholinguistics: bilingualism, cognition and communication (pp. 125–147). Essen: Linguistic Agency University of Duisburg.
Sperber, D. (1996). Explaining culture: A naturalistic approach. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Yu, N. (2008). Metaphor from body and culture. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 247–261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yu, N. (2009). The Chinese HEART in a cognitive perspective: Culture, body, and language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bagasheva, A. (2017). Cultural Conceptualisations of mouth, lips, tongue and teeth in Bulgarian and English. In: Sharifian, F. (eds) Advances in Cultural Linguistics. Cultural Linguistics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4056-6_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4056-6_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-4055-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-4056-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)