A Cognitive Study of FORCE Image Schemas
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/ths.2022.001Keywords
force, counterforce, image schema, thematic roles, vantage pointAbstract
In my 2022 paper on Thematic roles in image schemas, I illustrated my 2019b image schema definition with two examples: MOTION and CONTAINER. The present paper tests yet another instance of a more complex nature, FORCE and its variations. Newton’s Third Law that “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” means that all force variations have two force exerting objects in
counterforce configuration. The relation between them can be viewed from the perspective of either one, or both, which is reflected in language structures. We experience force as intensity of contact with objects, associating it with their mass and velocity, and extrapolate our experience to external objects, assessing their force by velocity and mass. Following my 2019b definition of the image schema, and my 2022 suggestion on the function of Thematic roles in image schemas, the present paper critically reviews and reinterprets earlier analyses of forces.
References
Anderson, C. (2018). Essentials of Linguistics. ON: McMaster University. https:// essentialsoflinguistics.pressbooks.com/ (DOA: 19 Nov. 2021).
Beaugrande, R. de, & Dressler W. (1980). Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman.
Berk, L. M. (1999). English Syntax: From Word to Discourse. New York–Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blake, F. R. (1930). A Semantic Analysis of Case. In: J. T. Hatfield, W. Leopold, &
A. J. F Friedrich Zieglschmid (Eds.). Curme Volume of Linguistic Studies, 34–49 [Reprint of Language Monograph No. 7. Published by the Linguistic Society of America].
Böhtlingk, O. (1839). Pāninis Grammatik. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Republished in 1998.
Chamberlain, D. (n.d.). The fetal senses: A classical view. http://schoolbiosynthesis.es/ wp-content/uploads/2016/09/The-Fetal-Senses-A-Classical-View.pdf (DOA: 12 August 2016).
Clausner, T., & Croft. W. (1999). Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10, 1–31.
Copley, B. (2002). Review of Leonard Talmy, Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000. Language, 78(3), 576–578.
Dowty, D. (1986). Thematic Roles and Semantics. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 340–354.
EAGLES = Expert Advisory Group on Language Engineering Standards; European Commission DG XIII programme. http://www.ilc.cnr.it/EAGLES96/synlex/ node62.html (DOA: June, 2020).
The Fetal Senses: A Classical View – Sensitivity to Touch. Science. 17th July 2016. https:// www.virtuebaby.com/fetal-senses-classical-view.html (DOA: 2 Oct. 2021).
Goddard, C. (1998). Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Grady, J. (2005). Image schemas and perception: Refining a definition. In: B. Hampe (Ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, 35–55. Berlin–New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gruber, J. (1965). Studies in Lexical Relations. PhD dissertation. MIT.
Hampe, B. (2005). Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Introduction. In: B. Hampe (Ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, 1–12. Berlin–New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hampe, B. (Ed.). (2005). From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin–New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Jellett, H. J. (1872). A Treatise on the Theory of Friction. Dublin: Hodges, Foster, and Co.; London: Macmillan and Co. https://books.google.pl/books?id=gjYDAAAAQA AJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=pl#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago–London: University of Chicago Press.
Kasper, S. (2008). A comparison of ‘Thematic role’ theories. Magister-Hausarbeit. Fachbereich Germanistik und Kunstwissenschaften der Philipps-Marburg: Universität Marburg. https://www.academia.edu/9185151/A_comparison_of_ Thematic_role_theories (DOA: May 10, 2020).
Kornas-Biela, D. (2011). Okres prenatalny [Prenatal period]. In: J. Trempała (Ed.), Psychologia rozwoju człowieka. Podręcznik akademicki [The psychology of human development. An academic handbook], 147–171). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Mandler, J. M., & Pagán Canovás, C. (2014). On defining image schemas. Language and Cognition, 6, 510–532.
Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and Reality. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Newton, I. (2001 [1726, 1729]). The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (Translated and Annotated by C. R. Leedham-Green, C. R. Leedham-Green, editor). Cambridge University Press.
Oakley, T. (2007). Image schemas. In: D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, pp. 214–235. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Payne, T. E. (2007). Summary of Semantic Roles and Grammatical Relations. https:// pages.uoregon.edu/tpayne/EG595/HO-Srs-and-GRs.pdf (DOA: 19 Oct. 2007).
Peña, S. C. (1999). Subsidiarity Relationships Between Image Schemas: An Approach to the Force Schema. Journal of English Studies, 1, 187–207.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London–New York: Longman.
Resnick, R., Halliday, D., & Krane, K. (1992). Physics, Volume 1. Michigan University: Wiley.
Rohrer, T. (2005). Image schemas in the brain. In: B. Hampe (Ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, 165–193. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Szwedek, A. (2000a). The ontology of metaphors: the sense of touch in language formation. Scripta Periodica, 4, 193–199.
Szwedek, A. (2000b). Senses, perception and metaphors (of Object and Objectification). In: S. Puppel, & K. Dziubalska-Kołaczyk (Eds.), Multibus vocibus de lingua, 143–153. Poznań: Wydział Filologiczny UAM.
Szwedek, A. (2002). Objectification: From Object Perception to Metaphor Creation. In: B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, & K. Turewicz (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics To- day, 159–175. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Szwedek, A. (2011). The ultimate source domain. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(2), 341–366.
Szwedek, A. (2018). The OBJECT Image Schema. In: P. Żywiczyński, M. Sibierska, & W. Skrzypczak (Eds.), Beyond Diversity: The Past and the Future of English, 57–89. Berlin: Peter Lang.
Szwedek, A. (2019a). Complex Image Schemas. Półrocznik Językoznawczy Tertium.
Tertium Linguistic Journal, 4(1), 1–11.
Szwedek, A. (2019b). The Image Schema: A Definition. Styles of Communication, 11(1), 9–30.
Szwedek, A. (2022). Thematic Roles in Image Schemas: A missing link between mind and language. Cognitive Semantics, 8, 141–157.
Szwedek, A. (2023a). The Image Schema. In: Thomas Li (ed.). A Handbook of Cognitive semantics. Ch. 23. (389–408). Leiden: Brill.
Szwedek, A. (2023b). Thematic Roles in Image Schemas. Part 2. A Missing Link from Reality to Mind. The Academic Journal of Modern Philology, 19, 7–21.
Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49–100.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations (Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Aleksander Szwedek
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 379
Number of citations: 0
