•  
  •  
 

Keywords

philosophy, linguistics, communication

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to use a frame-based account to explain some empirical findings regarding the accessibility of synaesthetic metaphors. Therefore, some results of empirical studies will be discussed with regard to the question of how much it matters whether the concept of the source domain in a synaesthetic metaphor is a scalar or a quality concept. Furthermore, typed frames are introduced, and it is explained how the notion of a minimal upper attribute can be used in the analysis of adjective-noun compounds. Finally, frames are used to analyze synaesthetic metaphors; it turns out that they offer an adequate basis for the explanation of different accessibility rates found in empirical studies.

Creative Commons License


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

References

Baayen, R., R. Piepenbrock, and L. Gulikers 1995. The CELEX lexical database (release 2). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania. (CD-ROM).

Barsalou, L. W. 1992. Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In A. Lehrer and E. F. Kittay (eds.), Frames, Fields, and Contrasts, pp. 21–74. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Beseoglu, H. and J. Fleischhauer 2007. Dimension and quality concepts in synaesthetic metaphors. In S. Vosniadou, D. Kayser, and A. Protopapas (eds.), Proceedings of EuroCogSci07, pp. 710–715. Delphi: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Black, M. 1962. Models and metaphor. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Carpenter, B. 1992. The Logic of Typed Feature Structures. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science 32. Cambridge, UK.

Guarino, N. 1992. Concepts, attributes and arbitrary relations: some linguistic and ontological criteria for structuring knowledge bases. Data and Knowledge Engineering 8(3):249–261.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0169-023X(92)90025-7

Guarino, N. and C. A. Welty 2000. A formal ontology of properties. In EKAW ’00: Proceedings of the 12th European Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition, Modeling and Management, pp. 97–112. London.

Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lehrer, A. and K. Lehrer 1982. Antonymy. Linguistics and Philosophy 5:483–501.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00355584

Petersen, W. 2007. Representation of concepts as frames. In J. Skilters, F. Toccafondi, and G. Stemberger (eds.), Complex Cognition and Qualitative Science, vol. 2 of The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, pp. 151–170. University of Latvia.

Petersen, W. and M. Werning 2007. Conceptual fingerprints: Lexical decomposition by means of frames - a neuro-cognitive model. In U. Priss, S. Polovina, and R. Hill (eds.), Conceptual Structures: Knowledge Architectures for Smart Applications, Proceedings of ICCS 2007, vol. 4604, pp. 415–428.

Shen, Y. 1997. Cognitive constraints on poetic figures. Cognitive Linguistics 8(1):33–71.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.1.33

Ullmann, S. 1967. The principles of Semantics. Oxford.

Werning, M., J. Fleischhauer, and H. Beseoglu 2006. The cognitive accessibility of synaesthetic metaphors. In R. Sun and N. Miyake (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 2365–70. London.

Williams, J. M. 1976. Synesthetic adjectives: A possible law of semantic change. Language 52(2):461–478.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/412571

Yu, N. 2003. Synesthetic metaphor: A cognitive perspective. Journal of Literary Semantics 32(1):19–34.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jlse.2003.001

Share

COinS