RASAL Lingüística

Issue 2020 - Vol. 1
Artículos

T he use of metaphor in reformulating procedures among Buenos Aires teenagers: conventionality and novelty

PDF (Español (España)) HTML (Español (España)) XML (Español (España))
  • Lucía Bregant
Lucía Bregant
Instituto de Filología – Universidad de Buenos Aires
Portada del número 2020 vol. 1
DOI: https://doi.org/10.56683/rs201080

Published 2020-03-16

Keywords

  • metaphor,
  • reformulation,
  • metaphorical conventionality,
  • illustration procedures,
  • discursive production activities

How to Cite

Bregant, L. (2020). T he use of metaphor in reformulating procedures among Buenos Aires teenagers: conventionality and novelty. RASAL Lingüística, (1), 29–53. https://doi.org/10.56683/rs201080

Copyright (c) 2020 Lucía Bregant

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to study textual procedures in which the reformulation of a metaphorical expression is carried out with a treating expression of a metaphorical nature. The use of metaphorical language is considered, according to the Theory of Discursive Production Activities (Gülich & Kotschi 1995; Brünner & Gülich 2002), an illustration procedure, which allows the interlocutors to solve communication problems through a set of verbal images. The relationship between the reference metaphorical expression and its reformulation is analyzed in terms of the degree of conventionalization on the one hand, and in terms of the conceptual domains to which each one belongs, on the other. Results show that the preferred movement is towards a greater degree of conventionality in the reformulations. In addition, the paper shows how different discursive and lexical resources allow speakers to expand a metaphor in their domain.

PDF (Español (España)) HTML (Español (España)) XML (Español (España))

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Alverson, H. 1994. Semantics and experience: Universal metaphors of time in English, Mandarin, Hindi, and Sesotho. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  2. Antos, G. 1982. Grundlagen einer Theorie des Formulierens. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
  3. Berri, M. & L. Bregant 2015. “Identificación de metonimias y metáforas: cuestiones metodológicas”, en: Lenguaje 43 (2). 219-246.
  4. Bregant, Lucía 2012. “Géneros textuales y géneros musicales: una aproximación a partir de las canciones”, en: Molina, L. & M. E. Sánchez (coords.) Actas de las I Jornadas de Jóvenes Lingüistas, 78-95 [en línea]. Buenos Aires: Editorial de la Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires. Disponible en: http://il.institutos.filo.uba.ar/sites/il.institutos.filo.uba.ar/files/Actas%20JJL-baja.pdf.
  5. Brünner, G. & E. Gülich. 2002. “Verfahren der Veranschaulichung in der Experten-Laien-Kommunikation”, en: Brünner, G. & E. Gülich (eds.) Krankheit verstehen: interdisziplinäre Beiträge zur Sprache in Krankheitsdarstellungen, 17-93. Bielefeld: Aisthesis Verlag.
  6. Cameron, L. 2003. Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum.
  7. Cameron, L. & A. Deignan. 2003. “Combining large and small corpora to investigate tuning devices around metaphor in spoken discourse”, en: Metaphor and Symbol 18(3). 149-160.
  8. Ciapuscio, G. 2003. “Formulation and reformulation procedures in verbal interaction between experts and (semi)laypersons”, en: Discourse Studies 5(2). 207-233.
  9. Ciapuscio, G. 2005. “Las metáforas en la creación y recontextualización de la ciencia”, en: Signo y Seña 14. 183-211.
  10. Ciapuscio, G. 2013. “Las metáforas en las cartas de lectores de revistas científicas”, en: Rétor 3(2). 168-186.
  11. Ciapuscio, G. 2016. “Conceptualizaciones metafóricas y recursos de formulación en narraciones de pacientes con migraña”, en : Oralia 19. 39-60.
  12. Ciapuscio, G. 2017. “Metáforas del corazón en conversaciones sobre crisis cardíacas”, en: Cancellier, A., A. Cassani & E. Dal Maso (eds.) El corazón es centro. Narraciones, representaciones y metáforas del corazón en el mundo hispánico, 151-169. Padua: Editorial Cleup.
  13. Crespo, N. & P. Cáceres. 2006. “La comprensión oral de las frases hechas: Un fenómeno de desarrollo tardío del lenguaje”, en: Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada 44(2), II. 77-90.
  14. Cruse, D. A. 1990. “Language, Meaning and Sense: Semantics”, en: Collinge, N. (ed.) An Encyclopedia of Language, 139-172. London: Routledge.
  15. Cruse, D. A. 2000. Meaning in language. An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  16. Czyżewski, M. et al. 1995. Selbst-und Fremdbilder im Gespräch. Theoretische und methodologische Aspekte. Nationale Selbst-und Fremdbilder im Gespräch. Opladen: Springer VS.
  17. Deignan, A. 2005. Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
  18. Deignan, A. 2008. “Corpus Linguistics and Metaphor”, en: Gibbs Jr. (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, 280-294. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  19. Eckert, P. 1997. “Why ethnography?”, en: Kotsinas, U., A. Stenstrom & A. Karlsson (eds.) Ungdomssprak i Norden, 52–62. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
  20. Fellbaum, C. & G. Miller. 1990. “Folk psychology or semantic entailment? Comment on Rips and Conrad (1989)”, en: Psychological Review 97(4). 565–570.
  21. Goatly, A. 1997. The Language of Metaphors. London: Routledge.
  22. Goossens, L. 2002. “Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action”, en: Dirven, R. & R. Pörings (eds.) Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast, 349-377. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  23. Gülich, E. 2003. “Conversational Techniques used in transferring knowledge between medical experts and non-experts”, en: Discourse Studies 5(2). 234-258.
  24. Gülich, E. 2006. “Des marqueurs de structuration de la conversation aux activités conversationnelles de structuration: Réflexions méthodologiques”, en: Drescher, M. (ed.) Les marqueurs discursifs dans les langues romanes, 11-36. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
  25. Gülich, E. & T. Kotschi. 1987. “Les actes de reformulation dans la consultation ‘La dame de Caluire’”, en : Bange, P. (ed.) L’analyse des interactions verbales. La Dame de Caluire: une consultation, 15-81. Bern: Peter Lang.
  26. Gülich, E. & T. Kotschi. 1995. “Discourse production in oral communication”, en: Quasthoff, U. M. (ed.) Aspects of oral communication, 30-66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  27. Hanks, P. 2004. “The Syntagmatics of Metaphor”, en: International Journal of Lexicography 17(3). 245-274.
  28. Hanks, P. 2006. “Metaphoricity is a gradable”, en: Stefanowitsch, A. & S. Gries (eds.) Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Vol. 1: Metaphor and Metonymy, 17-35. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  29. Hanks, P. 2013. Norms and Exploitations. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  30. Heinemann, M. & W. Heinemann. 2002. Grundlagen der Textlinguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
  31. Heinemann, W. 2000. “Textsorten. Zur Diskussion um Basisklassen des Kommunizierens. Rückschau und Ausblick”, en: Adamzik, K. (ed.) Textsorten. Reflexionen und Analysen, 9-29. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag Brigitte Narr GmbH.
  32. Kövecses, Z. 2000. Metaphor and Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Kövecses, Z. 2010. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
  34. Labov, W. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  35. Lakoff, G. 1987. “The death of dead metaphor” en: Metaphor and symbol 2(2). 143-147.
  36. Lakoff, G. 1993. “The contemporary theory of metaphor”, en Ortony, A. (ed.) Metaphor and thought, 202-251. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  37. Lakoff, G., J. Espenson & A. Schwartz. 1991. Master metaphor list. Berkeley: Cognitive Linguistics Group [en línea]. Disponible en: http://araw.mede.uic.edu/~alansz/metaphor/METAPHORLIST.pdf.
  38. Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  39. Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books.
  40. Lakoff, G. & M. Turner. 1989. More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  41. Miller, G. 1998. WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge & London: MIT Press.
  42. Nippold, M. 1998. Later Language Development. Austin: Pro Ed.
  43. Ortony, A. (ed.) 1979. Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  44. Philip, G. 2017. “Conventional and novel metaphors in language”, en: Semino, E. & Z. Demjén (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language, 219-232. New York: Taylor & Francis.
  45. Pragglejaz Group. 2007. “MIP: a method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse” en: Metaphor and Symbol 22. 1–39.
  46. Reddy, M. J. 1979. “The conduit metaphor: a case of frame conflict in our language about language”, en: Ortony, A. (ed.) Metaphor and Thought, 284–310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  47. Rosemberg, C. & M. L. Silva. 2009. “Teacher children interaction and concept- development in kindergarten” en: Discourse Processes 46(6). 572-591.
  48. Schegloff, E., G. Jefferson & H. Sacks. 1977. “The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation”, en: Language 53(2). 361-382.
  49. Silva, M. L. 2010. “El papel de la reformulación en los intercambios adulto-niño: un estudio de caso”, en: Revista signos 43(73). 307-331.
  50. Steen, G. 2007. Finding metaphor in grammar and usage. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  51. Steen, G., A. Dorst, J. Herrmann, A. Kaal, T. Krennmayr & T. Pasma. 2010. A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.