29.778, Confs: Cog Sci, Disc Analysis, Gen Ling, Historical Ling, Semantics/Portugal

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-29-778. Fri Feb 16 2018. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 29.778, Confs: Cog Sci, Disc Analysis, Gen Ling, Historical Ling, Semantics/Portugal

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Kenneth Steimel <ken at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 15:54:29
From: Angeliki Athanasiadou [angath at enl.auth.gr]
Subject: Figurativity Mixed and Massed: Blends and Bursts in Figurative Communication

 
Figurativity Mixed and Massed:  Blends and Bursts in Figurative Communication 

Date: 02-Oct-2018 - 02-Oct-2018 
Location: Braga, Portugal 
Contact: Angeliki Athanasiadou 
Contact Email: angath at enl.auth.gr 

Linguistic Field(s): Cognitive Science; Discourse Analysis; General Linguistics; Historical Linguistics; Semantics 

Meeting Description: 

For a long time scholars have studied figures in isolation; focusing on the
way a particular figure is conceptualized and expressed and applying this
knowledge on the impact of a figure both on linguistic as well as
nonlinguistic realizations. Some exceptions that focused on the interaction of
figures: metaphtonymy introduced by Goossens (1990) and later in 2003, the
interaction of metaphor and metonymy by Geeraerts, etc. soon made it clear
though that figures rarely work on their own. 

In recent literature, chains of a particular figure have been revealed, for
instance sequences involving metaphor. Mixed metaphors or multiple metaphors
are discussed in Gibbs (2016) with interesting contributions employing a
variety of terminologies in order to cope with different types of combinations
of metaphors or combinations of metaphor with other figures.   So we encounter
cases of extended metaphor (Naciscione): “A metaphor can be extended only by
extension of its metaphorical image” and “apart from metonymy, extended
metaphor may incorporate other figurative modes (.. , pun, hyperbole, irony)”.
For Müller, in the same volume, “metaphoric meaning is the product of a
process of cognitively activating selected facets of source and target…”. For
Cameron, mixed metaphors involve, “multiple juxtaposed verbal metaphors”. She
also talks about metaphor clusters in discourse and Müller talks about
multi-modal cluster of metaphoric expressions. David, Lakoff and Stickles
(2016) discuss metaphoric cascades: “pre-existing packages of hierarchically
organized primary and general metaphors that occur together”. The interaction
between metaphor and metonymy, called metaphoric complexes and their amalgams,
has been studied and refined by Ruiz de Mendoza and his associates (Ruiz de
Mendoza and Galera 2014, Miro-Sastre 2017).

It is also the case that we find the cooperation of more than two figures and
it is not infrequent to have metaphor, metonymy, irony, and hyperbole all in
one construction. Popa-Wyatt talks about compound figures and Musolff
discusses the interaction of metaphor, irony and sarcasm in public discourse.
These are some studies among many others which are concerned with the
relationship between figures, as well as the priority of one over the other in
their interaction.

Another interesting aspect in figurative mixing involves the relationship
between figurative language and other modalities like, for instance, gestures;
which frequently occur in bursts. There have been studies showing that when
both gestures and figures occur, gestures typically augment the figurativity
(Corts and Pollio 1999, Corts and Meyers 2002).  Questions on figurativity
with other modalities reveal multiple functions performed by such bursts.
Cienki and Müller 2008, and Müller 2007, among others, focus on the
characteristics and the function of such bursts. 

The aim of the current proposed theme session is (a) to discuss the difference
between terms assigned for the interaction among figures, namely clusters,
cascades, amalgams, blends, multiple, mixed/mixing figures,… . Why do scholars
feel the need to label them one way or another?  To what should we attribute
these differences?, and (b) to draw the attention of scholars working on
figuration towards the mixing of figures and their functions. The session aims
at discussing, on the one hand, the cooperation between figures and, on the
other, the cooperation of figures with other modalities (though a combination
of the two need not be excluded). The ultimate aim of the theme session is to
reveal the flexibility as well as the creativity in communication through
figurative blends and/or bursts.
 






------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-29-778	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.org/