Bretones Callejas, Carmen M.

Chamizo Dominguez, Pedro J.

English

Hochschulschriftenserver - Universität Frankfurt am Main

 234Z E S Z Y T Y N A U K O W E   UNIWERSYTETU RZESZOWSKIEGO  SERIA FILOLOGICZNA ZESZYT 14/2003           STUDIA ANGLICA RESOVIENSIA 2Pedro J. CHAMIZO DOMÍNGUEZ, Carmen M. BRETONES CALLEJAS MIND, LANGUAGE AND METAPHOR: EUROCONFERENCE ON CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE IMAGINATION. KERKRADE (THE NETHERLANDS), APRIL 20–24, 2002 The Mind, Language and Metaphor Euroconference took place thanks to the European Commission, Research DG, Human Potential Programme, and it was co-sponsored by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. Since the study of metaphor has become multidisciplinary, the meeting was a clear proof of the variety of interests and points of view in this field. Among attendants, we found linguists, psychologists, philosophers, computer scientists and even archeologists. For the most part they showed that metaphor is not only a linguistic phenomenon but a cognitive and cultural one. This conference went beyond other metaphor conferences insofar as it explored points of convergence between  three  major  fields  of  contemporary  research:  figures  of  speech, imagination and consciousness. The presentations delivered at the conference reached an impressively high scientific level and can be divided in three different blocks; first, the plenary sessions; second, the poster sessions; and third, the round tables and symposium sessions. The plenary sessions included the following talks: Cristina Cacciari (“Do we really  use  perceptual  information  in  understanding  metaphors?”,  University  of Modena, Italy); Zazie Todd (“Responding to the literary imagination”, University of Leeds, United Kingdom); Wallace Chafe (“The pervasiveness of imagination in thought and language”, University of California, United States); Brigitte Nerlich (“Metaphors  and  images  in  individual  and  popular  consciousness  and imagination”, University of Nottingham,  United Kingdom); Ray Gibbs (“What makes  figurative  language  easy,  or  difficult,  to  comprehend?”,  University  of California, United States); John Barden (“Metaphorically simulating (metaphorical simulating) self”, Birmingham University, United Kingdom); Marie-Dominique Gineste (“Combining explanations in terms of activation and explanations in terms of  phenomenal  experience:  the  case  of  metaphors”,  University  of  Paris  XIII,  235France); Ann Dowker (“Young children’s figurative language: how important are cultural  and  linguistic  influences?”,  University  of  Oxford,  United  Kingdom); Steven Mithen (“The origin of metaphor and human culture”, Reading University, United  Kingdom);  George  Lakoff  (“Metaphor,  mind  and  brain”,  University  of California, United States); Mark Johnson (“Embodied metaphor”, University of Oregon,  United  States);  Antonio  Barcelona  (“Metonymy  as  a  multi-level phenomenon  in  usage  events”;  University  of  Murcia,  Spain);  Gerard  Steen (“Metaphor in literary imagination and consciousness: foregrounding revisited”, Free University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands); Maxim Stamenov (“‘Visible’ and ‘invisible’ in language structure: For whom the bell rings?”, University of Göttingen, Germany); Ray Paton (“Systemic metaphors, collection concepts and biosystem modelling”, Liverpool University, United Kingdom); Beatrice Warren (“Producing and interpreting metaphor and metonymy – An alternative cognitive account”,  Lund  University,  Sweden);  and  Rachel  Giora  (“Pleasure  inducing utterances: Figurativeness vs. optimal innovation”, Tel Aviv University, Israel). The poster sessions included 63 posters that can be divided in the following thematic  groups.  Namely,  (1),  metaphor  and  discourse  (i.e.  A.  Naciscione’s “Extended  phraseological  metaphor  in  discourse:  identification  and interpretation”,  K.  Corman’s  “Cognition  and  visual  metaphor:  incongruous person-thing, visual imagery, cross modal vision and touch in Dickens’s  Our Mutual  Friend”,  S.  Csabi’s  “Thomas  Paine’s  common  sense:  a  cognitive linguistic analysis”, J. Desheriyeva’s “The interplay of reality and imagination in drama/communicative aspect”, K. Feyaerts’ “Expressivity through compression: Metaphtonymic variation in German negative value judgements”, B. I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano’s “Motivation, imagination, and the lexicon: A model for the study of polysemy  in  perception  verbs”,  H.  Jakubowicz  Batoreo’s  “Audio-visual imagination and metaphor translating: English filmic scripts and their Portuguese and  Polish  target  versions.  Is  a  wafer  a  biscuit?”,  C.  Michaux’  “Literary interpretation and cognitive processes”, P. Rubio Fernández’ “The inhibition of core features in metaphor interpretation”, E. Semino’s “Metaphor and mind style in narrative fiction”, and Th. Smith’s “Choice of mode in employing metaphors during dispute resolution”); (2), metaphor acquisition (i.e. K. Duvignau’s “From a not-conscious use of ‘metaphor’ (2–3 years) to a deliberate one (adult): verbal metaphors  as  ‘semantic  approximations  by  analogy’”,  and  A.D.  Ionescu’s “Flexible  categorization  in  children  –  a  necessary  step  toward  metaphor comprehension?”); (3), metaphor and icons (i.e. E.D. Brouwer’s “Reflection on metaphors:  imagination  and  consciousness  in  aesthetic  interpretation”,  C. Müller’s, “Are dead metaphors alive? Metaphors, gestures, and consciousness”, A. Niemeier’s “Metaphorical projections of contextual elements in audiovisual texts”, J.M. Pluciennik’s “Iconicity of figures, empathy and consciousness”, B. Scott’s “Picturing metaphor”, and M.A. Steenberg’s “Perceptual metaphors: the aesthetics of language”); (4), metaphor and other figures of language (i.e. C.M.  236Bretones Callejas’ “Synaesthesia in language and thought: physiological basis for  synaesthetic  metaphors”,  P.  J.  Chamizo  Domínguez’s  “Some  theses  on euphemisms  and  dysphemisms”,  M.  Nissim  &  K.  Markert’s  “A  scheme  for annotating  metonymies:  the  case  of  location  names”,  and  Y.B.  Popova’s “Synaesthesia: A views from cognitive linguistics”); (5), metaphor, philosophy, and  ideology  (i.e.  M.E.  Botha’s  “No  metaphor  without  ideological  (and ontological) freight”, C. De Landtsheer’s “Metaphors and the socialization of nationalism through soccer reporting”, L. Tarnay’s “Revisiting representation: a philosophical  approach”,  M.  Tendahl’s  “Relevance  theory  and  metaphor:  A hybrid  model”,  and K. Wiejak’s  “Proverb  understanding  and  the structure  of intelligence”); (6), metaphor in science and arts (i.e. R. Caballero’s “Thinking and talking in images: the role of image metaphor in the discourse of architects”, and M. Zawislawska’s “To describe the indescribable. Metaphors in the language of science”); (7), contrastive studies of metaphor (i.e. Al-Harrasi’s “Metaphors of morality  in  Arabic  culture”,  M.  Azuma’s  “Networking  and  mapping  in understanding and use of English metaphorical expressions performed by native English  and  non-native  English  speakers”,  E.  Chamis’  “Metaphor  usage  in description  of  other  nations  in  multicultural  regions  of  Russia  (Russians, Chuvash and Tatar people). Reality or not?”, L. Degand’s “Towards automatic retrieval of idioms in Dutch and French newspaper corpora”, H. Obeidat’s “My belly  swells  with  anger:  The  anger  metaphor  in  Arabic  and  English  a comparative study”, J. Ryhänen’s “On metaphors of time in Finnish and Russian languages”, C.M. Soriano Salinas’ “The HEAT metaphor in the expression of anger  in  English  and  Spanish.  Cognitive  submappings”,  and  E.  Wande’s “Metaphor and bilingualism”); (8), body, mind, and metaphor (i.e. K.L. Allan’s “Illuminati and hulver-heads: intelligence metaphors through time”, H. Duczak’s “Hidden  metaphors:  detecting  the  secrets”,  A.M.  Kovacs’  “More  languages, theories of minds, and executive functions. Influences and interactions”, A.M. Rapp’s “Brain activation during processing of metaphors: an eFMRI-study”, F. Rousset’s “Cognitive and sensory grounds for metaphor comprehension”, and J. Zinken’s  “Body  and  text:  Situated  experience  as  the  basis  of  literary imagination”); and (9), metaphor in advertisements (i.e. R. Rocamora Abellán’s “Metaphor and metonymy in tourist advertising”, and A. Szokolszky’s “Pretend object play and metaphor production”). The round tables and symposium sessions were divided in two parts. The first one, led by Gerard Steen, consisted of the presentations of the Pragglejaz Group, which is an informal ensemble of metaphor researchers from  various disciplines in linguistics, who have joined to achieve progress in the reliable and valid identification of metaphor in natural discourse (for further information see http://www.let.vu.nl/pragglejaz). The second one, led by Brigitte Nerlich, was on metaphor,  science  and  media,  and  included  the  following  speakers:  Pedro  J. Chamizo  Domínguez  (University  of  Malaga,  Spain),  Iina  Riikka  Hellsten  237(University  of  Amsterdam,  The  Netherlands);  Rafael  Rocamora  Abellán, (University  of  Murcia,  Spain);  and  Magdalena  Zawislawska  (University  of Warsaw,  Poland).  The  main  conclusion  reached  at  the  symposium  was  that scientific  language  in  media  is  a  particular  case  of  “translation”  from  the language of science into ordinary language. Regarding the organization of the conference, both the technical and the scientific aspects have been impressive. The technical support before, during and after  the  conference  has  been  possible  thanks  to  Anne-Sophie  Gablin  (the conference organiser). As for the scientific aspects there are two important facts that built up the conference as it was. Firstly, Zazie Todd and John Barden (chair and  vice-chair,  respectively)  recruited  (with  the  help  of  Brigitte  Nerlich)  the participation of both established researchers and young researchers who have recently  finished  or  still  work  on  their  dissertations  on  metaphor  and  other related  topics  such  as  metonymy,  euphemisms,  synaesthesia,  and  so  on. Secondly, the multidisciplinary views from which metaphor (both theoretical and practical) has been studied made the conference profitable for every attendant. On the other hand, presentations on diachronic aspects of metaphor, as well as traditional theories of metaphor were missing. The main paradigm from which metaphor  was  studied  was  the  cognitive  one,  though  perhaps  for  future conferences or research we should include or discuss other alternative paradigms as well. Finally, we would like to stress the special support that young scientists have received from the organization of the conference, and also inform here that this conference will be followed by a second conference. The sequel will take place in Granada (Spain) in 2004.   

Mind, language and metaphor : Euroconference on consciousness and the imagination, Kerkrade (the Netherlands), april 20-24, 2002.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Hochschulschriftenserver - Universität Frankfurt am Main