1
METAPHORS AND INTERCOMPREHENSION
Guy Achard-Bayle
Université Paul Verlaine Metz & CELTED
Our interest in cognitive linguistics focuses here on the following points of view: (i) theoreticalsociocognitive, as a descriptive, interpretative discipline for modes of linguistically grasping a
reality (intersubjective representations, shared by a sociocultural community); and (ii) appliedmetacognitive, as a tool in a reflexive learning situation for comprehending, producing, and
appropriating previous linguistic modes.
If the articulation between linguistics and applied linguistics is of interest to us here, it is
nonetheless true that the development of cognitive linguistics has not (yet) borne all its fruits in
terms of linguistic appropriation (namely, in language acquisition and language learning --LAL),
and it is pertinent to wonder whether and how the transfer will continue to operate. Poststructural notional-functional theories and methodologies have subjected the notion to the
function and the word to the act, which has not meant great progress for the cause of meaning
--between the repetition of structural batteries and the simulation of scenarios not to say
communicative stereotypes.
Nevertheless, we are witnessing a cognitive and textual renewal and it seems that the transfers
have taken place in the direction of a resemantization of linguistic appropriations. Thus, on the
basis particularly of the works of Benveniste and Weinrich, we have seen the appearance of
contents and practices concerning the interpretation and/or use of declarative marks (personal,
deictic, or linked to the aspectual, modal, temporal values). Things have gone the same way for
textual competence (skills), thanks to the work deriving from functional syntax (Combettes 1983)
and Textlinguistik (Beaugrande & Dressler 1981). Here again, results have been achieved:
organisation of text, coherence-cohesion, anaphora, thematisation, text typology, etc. Narratology
(Genette) and discourse analyses (Bakhtine) have helped here (see the notions of focalisation,
dialogism, polyphony, etc. applied to narrative texts and to reported speech). But, as Benveniste
says, in every case, we are, and we remain more confronted with manifestations of the subject of
the language, be they conventional, than with collective representations: doubtless, it is more
difficult to grasp the points of view of a community on the world…
2
Nevertheless, as far as referential and lexical semantics is concerned (this is one of the favourite
areas of cognitive linguistics and where the results should be the most significant), it seems we
have difficulty going beyond the stage of applications. This lag is no doubt not only due to the
relative rarity of research results in this field, or rather in this conception of linguistics, but also,
upstream, to the very complexity of this research: "It is a commonplace to say that every
language embodies in its very structure a certain world-view, a certain philosophy. To prove it in
a rigorous and verifiable way, however, is quite a different matter" (Wierzbicka 1988: 169).
Now, if one follows this author's premises, one is obliged to note that the difficulties take on
greater importance with the lexicon:
Since the syntactic constructions of a language embody and codify certain language-specific meanings
and ways of thinking, the syntax of a language must determine to a considerable extent this language's
cognitive profile. It is true that lexical items also embody language specific ways of thinking. But the
semantic analysis of an entire lexicon is a gigantic task… (Ibid.)
And one would suppose the same holds true for its acquisition. Nevertheless we shall attempt to
see what contents and activities for the acquisition of lexis can be envisaged in cognitive terms,
using the following concrete examples, or the precise domain, in theoretical and applied
linguistics: the nominal designations, between anaphora and metaphors: knowing that the former
often allow for inaccurate or deformed references to the referential and the latter for us to "grasp
and catch" it under improper or borrowed features, it is finally for an "indirect" but dynamic
appropriation of vocabulary that we are pleading, hoping also that this practice will attain the
intercultural and collective dimension mentioned.
1. Positions: cognitive linguistics, from theory to applications
We began from the observation that cognitive linguistics has not borne all its fruits in terms of
applications. After presenting the principles of cognitive linguistics from the theoretical and
applied points of view, we shall see to what difficulties, in our opinion, the establishment of a
grammar of representations has been and is still exposed. We shall define at the right moment
what we mean by representations, while still making the effort to articulate --show the
articulations between-- cognitive linguistics and grammar of representations.
1.1 Theoretical or sociocognitive point of view
We shall first envisage cognitive linguistics as a descriptive and interpretative discipline of the
modes of linguistically grasping reality. This brings up the question of the reality of an external
world, which is not always accepted or postulated as such in semantic research today (Kleiber
3
1997). But we shall not enter this ontological debate, as, for what concerns us, we mean by
"world" a world of experience, which is thus related to individuals sharing, apart from a
language, modes of being in the world, or in this world.
This established, it is no longer the point to study the world as such (this task is for the physical
sciences), but in fact intersubjective representations, those shared by a sociocultural community.
The affirmation of the existence of these representations is based on the fact that individuals
share, linguistically and otherwise. Thus they are in a relationship of intercomprehension. It is
clear that here we are touching, and very closely, on preoccupations of an intercultural nature…
We can find the essential of these pre-supposed theories in one of the founding works of
discourse analysis (Brown & Yule 1998: 2061): "Analytic distinction can be made between what
is in the world and what we might describe as the representation in a person's mind of what is in
the world."
These authors add that intercomprehension is based on "a similar general experience of the
world, sociocultural conventions" and that it is rare that "a hearer's identification of an individual
entity in his representation will be an exact replica of what exists in the speaker's representation".
These quotations lead us to one last specification: we shall mean by representations both the
effect of a common experience of the world --what one can call image schema following Turner
(1996), or idealised cognitive model following Lakoff (1987)-- and the expression of all this.
1.2 Applied – or metacognitive point of view
We shall now envisage cognitive linguistics as a tool, for the appropriation, the comprehension,
the production of the linguistic modes of representation previously described. Thus there are two
metacognitive levels: the reflexive level of appropriation and that of the modes of representations;
but here we shall envisage their relationship. There remains the question of knowing how
recourse to cognition is justified, and at both of the levels presented.
1.2.1 Reflexive appropriation and cognition
We shall certainly not assimilate both; rather we shall place them in a contiguous, or better still a
continuous, relationship. Reflexive appropriation (in language acquisition and language learning)
had its defenders and illustrators at the close of the behaviourist-structuralist period (in brief, the
method which, twenty years ago, was based on repetitive appropriation mechanisms), and in
1
The following principles are set out or recalled in relation to operations of identification (§ 6.2.1 "Reference
and discourse representations"); a precision of great importance in the perspective which we have given ourselves:
the applications of referential and lexical semantics.
4
France they were found in the works inspired by enunciation theories (Benveniste, Culioli: cf.
Portine 1994). Reflexive appropriation is not therefore new.
But the first confirmed contiguity and continuity between enunciation theories and cognitive
linguistics is in the field of fundamental research: see, in particular, Culioli, Fauconnier and
Lakoff in the proceedings directed by Fuchs & Robert (1997). As Fuchs shows in her
introductory article, this contiguity-continuity results from a shared interest both in the diversity
of languages and, thereby, in modes of representations, thus of intercultural variations. In both
cases, one can draw the effect, on the appropriation level, that language and culture articulate:
[The diversity of languages leads to the] problem of the diversity of significant representations
constructed by languages. Languages linguistics urgently [needs to be] opened up to cognitive
perspectives and vice versa. [We must therefore research] the links between linguistic
2
conceptualisation, culture and thought [in an] ethno-linguistic perspective… (Fuchs, art. quoted, 4-9)
However this contiguity-continuity is not --to our knowledge-- confirmed in the applied domain
of linguistic appropriations, at least not in France. We shall see (section 1.3) the difficulties that
still separate us from it.
1.2.2 Learning representations
Now we need to see how useful and necessary it is to make the links postulated here by Fuchs
--and elsewhere by Duranty (2000: 212): "Link grammar to culture". Duranty thus shows, based
on enunciation markers (op. cit.: 209, indexes, shifters and deictic terms), that the speech acts
such as for example recounting stories, describing the properties of objects, or attracting
someone's attention have another dimension, less obvious but just as effective:
By listening to someone giving directions, for instance, we might be able to gather information on
where that person comes from, his/her social class, his/her familiarity with the surroundings […] may
be his/her political views…
The act, be it informative or referential, is thus accompanied by an "indexical" and a "social
meaning". In both cases, speaking is then "a continuity process of contextualisation" (op. cit.:
211).
This conception remains nevertheless more centred on the singular individual than on the
collective subject; one can still find this option in the line of work on the subject speaking,
recently, with Culioli (1997: 56, conclusion): "Without a subject, in its relations with other
2
Cf. Mel'cuk (1997).
5
subjects, we cannot take account of the empirical observations which are the trace of our
cognitive activity, as it appears, in a specific way, through the language."
For the subject speaking, the influence of the work of Benveniste and Weinrich on the semantic
renewal of contents and practices in language acquisition and langage learning has been
emphasized. But it has also been said that the manifestations of the subject in the language are
not collective representations, these latter being no doubt more difficult to grasp.
1.3 Difficulties of application
We shall try to expose the patterns, under various headings.
1.3.1 Methodology (I): the theoretical collection and exploitation of data
The lag observed is no doubt due, upstream, to the very complexity of this type of research; again
we quote Wierzbicka (1988: 169):
Scholars tend to treat the Humboldtian (or Whorfian) thesis that every language embodies in its very
structure a certain world-view, a certain philosophy with suspicion and embarrassment. One suspects
that this is precisely because while being obviously true it is at the same time notoriously difficult to
prove.
On the other hand, in cultural or ethnolinguistic terms, Fuchs remarks (1997: 5) that "the problem
of the diversity of significant representations constructed by languages" in fact raises a big
methodological or epistemic problem: that of the very observation of, or noticing, the relevant
facts in constrastivity; Fuchs then quotes Hockett (1954, 116; our italics): "The differences
between languages lie less in what it is possible to specify than in what it is relatively easy or
difficult to specify."
1.3.2 Methodology (II): relevance of the applications?
Besides the fact that, while significant, the results of research in this branch of linguistics are still
rare, it seems "simpler" to propose (to students of linguistics) a reasoned description of a corpus
or a state of language than to transpose these same data into language learning contents. It would
seem therefore necessary to calculate the cost of work of conceptualisation (Fuchs) that this form
of reflexive learning would represent. And we may suspect, always in terms of relevance and
treatment, that the cost would be disproportionate to the benefit of what is finally acquired.
But there is, if one may say so, something more serious: one finds with cognitivists themselves a
radical position, which goes "against the tide" of a methodology founded on the development of
linguistic competences. This is particularly true of Thomas & Turner (1996) who, at the
beginning of their manual of written expression for American students, state:
6
The teaching of writing in America is almost entirely controlled by the view that teaching writing is
teaching verbal skills --from the placing of commas to the ordering of paragraphs […] Our answer is
that writing is an intellectual activity, not a bundle of skills. Writing proceeds from thinking. To
achieve good prose styles, writers must work through intellectual issues, not merely acquire
mechanical techniques. Although it is true that an ordinary intellectual activity like writing must lead
to skills, and that skills visibly mark the performance, the activity does not come from the skills, nor
does it consist of using them […] Writing is defined conceptually and leads to skills. Intellectual
activity generate skills, but skills do not generate intellectual activity. The relationship is not
symmetric. (op. cit.: 3-4)
After the rather somber observations we have just made, we would nevertheless like to suggest
avenues which allow us to envisage a methodology in the framework of cognitive linguistics.
Let us say first, along with Brassart (1990: 79), that meaning, in the text as in verbal interaction,
springs both "from knowledge of the referential (referential or informative dimension)", and
"more general knowledge of social relationships or conventions", and finally "the knowledge of
structures, of prototypical textual schemes"; we shall refer finally to three of Halliday's (1985)
linguistic dimensions or functions: ideational, interpersonal, organizational.
We shall take up in detail the first function in the framework of a methodology "oriented towards
cognitive processes, mental operations more than towards products" (Brassart, op. cit.: 76-77).
Meaning does not function without informational or thematic content. From this point of view,
cognitive linguistics applied to texts and speech (what we call textual pragmasemantics) is
interested in the referents before seeing what the textual representations of them are (we are
entering the domain of referential and lexical semantics), and what the thematic organisations
(progressions) are which make these referents topics or subjects of speech.
Reflexivity or metacognition here covers designations and their possible evolution (by
pronominal, demonstrative reformulations…). Besides, nominal designation and particularly
reformulation is the favoured place for expressing a point of view. This reflexive methodology is
wide open to vocabulary and the appropriation of it, on condition however, in our opinion, that
we quit a conception of lexis in terms of distinctive traits (we shall develop this further in part
three).
From designative choices there may result, according to the systematicity, a vision of the world,
which opens up the possibility of textual study in the light of the social sciences, and particularly
of the history of ideas (Achard-Bayle: 1999). But may we say from our modest experience that
this extension is difficult to establish from the indications proposed?
7
Besides, cognitive linguistics teaches us that there is not really an "exact" word3. If one follows
the present theories of the prototype (cf. Kleiber 1990), one tends rather towards a categorization
of nouns according to their family resemblance, which enables us to integrate in one proto- or
stereotypical category, thus to record under the same species name: a lime like a lemon, a sheep
with four as with five legs, a white or black swan, a tiger with or without stripes and so on…
1.4. Summary & openings
The potential of an LAL favouring meaning and cultural representations requires going beyond
(i) only communicative or pragmatic approaches as well as (ii) local or formal analyses (microsyntax, lexical semantics in language, lexis-grammar link) left to us by structural or generativetransformational grammar (cf. Langacker 1999-1: 4).
But we have said that, if results have been acquired in textual semantics (text organisation,
coherence-cohesion, anaphora, thematisation, text typology, etc.), we were always confronted
more by manifestations of the subject in the language than by collective representations; and
seeing it's more difficult, it has also been said, to grasp the points of view of a community on the
world, it seems we are still far from a grammar of representations.
We want nevertheless to defend this perspective, as it is already based on proposals and
experiences. Talking of experiences, we wondered if this type of reflexive method could only
come at advanced levels of acquisition-learning (Achard-Bayle: 2001), as it seems to demand of
the subject speaking first that he/she be capable of distancing or modelling, and second that
he/she share "naturally" and reflexively the codes, values and points of view of one or better of
several linguistic and cultural communities (Eckkrammer et al.: 1999); which presupposes
therefore not only advanced competence (skills) in language and methodology, but also an
interpersonal attitude half-way between complicity and curiosity (Pentcheva & Shopov: 1999).
But the propositions of these various researchers will help us to show the opposite.
One can say in a word that contrastive textology allows for a theoretical description --so should
allow one to appropriate-- textual or enunciation processes, by comparison and distancing. It
allows one in theory --so should allow one in practice also-- outside of corpuses and plain
contexts (cooking recipes, small ads, packaging and instructions on medicines, net-talk, etc.) to
pick out constants, and, consequently, cultural variations. Thus we can get round the problem of
just literary text capable of or liable to signify representations. In as much as recipes can come
3
For a criticism of lexical analyses in features, see Wierzbicka (1988 ch. 9: What is in a noun?).
8
from works which present a high interest value for the historical development of mentalities (e.g.
in this context the English, French or Catalan Middle Ages).
Concerning Pentcheva & Shopov (the title of their book is significant), their propositions give
prominence to cognition, as the primary principle of appropriation. In concrete terms, these
researchers show that speaking, knowing, learning one language, and another, are conceptual
activities, which means exactly: possessing or investing a specific "conceptual domain" (op. cit.:
9), i.e. a mental space of representations determined by a shared social and sociocultural
experience of the world. Here we find the familiar vocabulary of a Fauconnier or a Turner 4. It is
therefore no coincidence that the illustrations that the writers of Whole Language, Whole Person
propose concern firstly metaphors (in the tradition of Lakoff & Johnson 1987 and 1999).
We shall therefore conclude here on these suggestions. The theory of conceptual spaces, blending
and integration (Fauconnier 1997, Turner 2000), or the theory of the literary mind (Turner 1996)
allow for a renewal of lexical appropriation from metaphors. Now not only will the latter no
longer be conceived as literary ornaments, but rather as modes of conceptualisation anchored in
daily life, but they will also enable appropriation to be no longer partitioned and strictly
denotative, but dynamic and transversal through conceptual domains, for the reason that they
exhibit a likeness.
2. Propositions in the semantics of designations
We would like to present here some practical propositions for the appropriation (acquisition and
learning) of vocabulary.
2.1 How to "derive" in lexical semantics?
First of all, it seems that the dominant principles and practices are inspired by traditional
semantics which usually presents vocabulary in the form of lists, i.e. according to orders which
are supposed to reflect the organisation of lexemes in the language, more than according to their
usage in speech or context. From this point of view, lexemes are, in the structural tradition,
arranged in relation, if such is the case, of groupings by thematic "interest" (cf. Spaeth 1964, or
Thiry et al. 1999), or even "notional-functional", or of lists of synonyms or antonyms.
4
Pentcheva & Shopov nevertheless remind us that this idea of language as a conceptual domain to inhabit or
invest comes from the Humboldt's philosophy of language (which is proved by Nerlich & Clarke 1999).
9
Here we find Cruse's two great "hierarchical configurations" put into practice (1997: 136 and
157): hyponymic taxinomies and meronymies, which can be represented by the following
examples:
Hyponymic hierarchy
Creature
Animal
Elephant
bird
dog
fish
…
Spaniel
insect
…
…
Alsatian
Meronymic hierarchy
Body
Head neck
Forearm
arm
leg
…
hand
Palm
finger
These presentations and representations of course have their usefulness, but one must also say
that from these tree diagrams, linguistic "grasping" thus the appropriation of lexemes will
essentially take place in the form of utterances out of context or "allways-true" of the same type
as those which Cruse quotes after his diagrams:
(1) A spaniel is a kind of dog. (2) A rose is a type of flower. (3) A hand has fingers. (4) A finger is
a part of hand. (Cruse op. cit.: 137 and 161)
However it seems that if one spends time on utterances which present "incompatible hyponymic"
relations, one can better practise the language in action (notably by argumentation):
(5) ? A waiter is a kind of man.
(6-1) A -- What kind of animals did you see at the zoo?
(6-2) B -- (i)? Big ones, little ones…
(6-3) B-- (ii) Lions, tigers, monkeys, zebras…
(7-1) A hand has fingers.
(8-1) A wife has a husband.
(7-2) A finger is a part of a hand.
10
(8-2) ? A husband is a part of a wife.
One may even suppose that the more the native and foreign languages present variations or
differences on these questions of organisation or hierarchy, the more lexical reflexive
appropriation for L2 (and by the same token L1) will be motivating, because it will be exotic.
It was also noticeable, in the mini-dialogue quoted (6-1 to 6-3), that the lexical "errors" can also
be "errors" of communication. In this case, reflexive LAL is not only linked to the act, but is also
based on the fact that if language is inherent in the social (Akhtar & Tomasello 2000: 116-117),
then learning a language can or must be done "in and for conversations", therefore including
when these conversations are for educative or didactic purposes:
The key social-cognitive ability […] is the capacity to view other humans as intentional agents […] In
using a given word, a speaker means to call attention to some entity for which the word is a
conventional symbol. Therefore, in order to understand a new word, the child must enter into a state of
joint focus with the speaker […] In some situations; an adult can aid the child by commenting on
something that is already at the child's focus of attention… (Akhtar & Tomasello art. quoted: 125)
2.2 Metaphors for a different kind of lexical appropriation
We have just seen what benefits one could draw from the taxonomic "trial and error" of a child,
or a learner. We shall try to pursue here the same "unsignposted" paths, but for the other semantic
side of lexis, reference and nominal designations. One can, in the best of cases, expect to learn a
few lessons no longer on a point of view but on mentalities, which would allow us to reach the
level of collective representations that we wish for, which links (more) systematically language
and culture.
Metaphor should, among other domains of reflection and linguistic activity, allow us to reach the
desired objective. We must first bear in mind that metaphor like any nominal description can
appear in the referential or in the attributive position. Only in the former case does it designate,
and thus acquire an autonomous referential status which confers on it an ontological foundation
and thus a superior argumentative force; to put it briefly, it's better to say: That vermin… that
Gregor, that vermin… to transmit to or impose on others one's point of view in any case, than,
Gregor is vermin… Besides, metaphor with referential status can be included in the list of
inaccurate anaphora and its reflexive appropriation be thus included in the series of phenomena
and procedures of grasping and of "oblique" representations.
But there is more. Metaphor is at the very heart of cognition --thus of lexis; which is evidenced
by appendix 1: the family is, straight off, presented as a circle. Now one can collect such
11
metaphors to see not only how they run through and structure lexis (as in such vocabulary lists
drawn up by themes or interests), but also an entire sociocultural representation (such as is, in its
way, the chapter of the manual which we are studying here).
Thus if one takes this document as an example, a first scanning reveals, rapidly, that, if the
metaphor of the circle only really appears in the title, except perhaps in the illustration which
follows, this illustration on the other hand supplies another "sizeable" metaphorical clue: the tree
which overhangs and protects the family circle. Now, the tree also takes root, and we know that it
represents genealogy in numerous cultures. Then we see (at the foot of page 1 in appendix 1) that
the first utterance, supposed to put lexis in context or into practice, includes the verb stammen
aus…, come from…, which comes from Stamm, whose original meaning is trunk. The tree image
thus becomes a metaphor and takes on various meanings. Now, if you continue reading or
studying the chapter, you find the tree (at least) twice, as a species name and in the referential
function (appendix 2): wir Kinder sangen und tanzten dazu um den grossen Lindenbaum herum;
as an element (wood) of comparison (appendix 3): Aber unbeweglich und wie aus Holz geschnitzt
sind die von Arbeit und Schiksal harten Gesichter… Thus it seems we really have here a
"thread", a point of view of representations which is applied to several domains of experience:
man and his diverse environments, family, village, countryside, region, profession, religion, etc.,
sets them in relation, blends them. It remains to be seen how we can interpret them (inter)
culturally.
On this point, whose aim is to relate metaphor and mentalities, we propose to start a second route
which will leave, but also take the reader out of, the manual. It will then be necessary to consider
the manual as a document which reflects, more or less directly, a point of view, or a set (to be
determined) of points of view, attested, contested, by other documents. It thus appears quite
clearly that the metaphors which we have picked out refer to a certain number of images, and
therefore bring back a certain number of "romantic", or conventional images of German or
Germanic culture and society: the Lindenbaum is here the most "conspicuous", but one could add
the evocation of the (Swabian) forest, traditional costumes, even wood carving, etc. It wouldn't be
difficult to find in other documents convergent and divergent representations.
General conclusions
We shall not go any further, because it seems to us that if we want to progress in this direction of
intercultural interpretation, in which we need an interdisciplinary investigatory procedure to
12
exploit, in the sense of a grammar of representations, or mentalities, such documents, and the
images and points of view they purvey. We shall, however, add that the undertaking will be a
chance to show (including to learners) firstly how far representation of self (e.g. texts of writers
in appendices 2 and 3) and representation of others overlap (these texts were chosen by the author
of the manual himself); secondly how far diverse representations blend or integrate, which here
again results both from the texts quoted and from the very choice of these texts.
We have tried to plead in favour of cognitive linguistics and reflexive appropriation. With this
aim we have trodden a path which leads from lexis to the language-culture articulation. Now if
this articulation is the key to research into cognitive linguistics, it should be also for language
acquisition and learning which is no longer limited to formal frameworks (morpho-syntax,
structurally inspired lexis , "pragmatics" of communicative diagrams or scenarios), but opens out
to the world and to the modes of representation of the world which is why full benefit will in our
opinion be drawn from designative lexis, and from certain procedures of (re) categorisations such
as inaccurate anaphora and metaphors to question and to cause a diverse emergence of the
relations of words to the world.
References
Achard-Bayle, Guy (1999). Dénominations, cohésion et point de vue dans Histoire d'un voyage faict en la terre du
Bresil de J. de Léry. In Neveu, Franck (ed.). Phrases : syntaxe, rythme, cohésion du texte. Paris: Sedes, 61-77.
--(2001). Le développement conjugué des compétences langue-culture à des niveaux avancés. In Collès, Luc et al.
(eds). Didactique des langues romanes. Le développement de compétences chez l'apprenant. Louvain-la-Neuve: De
Boeck, 204-212.
Akhtar, Nameera and Tomasello, Michael (2000). The Social Nature of Words and Word Learning. In MichnikGolinkoff, Roberta et al. (eds). Becoming a World Learner. A Debate on Lexical Acquisition. Oxford-New York:
Oxford University Press, 115-135.
Beaugrande (de), Robert-Alain and Dressler, Wolfgang (1981). Einführung in die Text-linguistik. Tübingen:
Niemeyer.
Brassart, Dominique-Guy (1990). Une didactique cognitive du FLM. In Brassard, Dominique-Guy et al. (eds).
Perspectives didactiques du français. Université de Metz: Pratiques, 75-99.
Brown, Gillian and Yule, George (1983 reprint 1998). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: University Press.
Combettes, Bernard (1983). Pour une grammaire textuelle, Bruxelles-Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot.
Cruse, David A. (1986 reprint 1997). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: University Press.
Culioli, Antoine (1997). Subjectivité, invariance et déploiement des formes dans la construction des représentations
linguistiques. In Fuchs, Catherine and Robert, Stéphane (eds). Diversité des langues et représentations cognitives.
Gap-Paris: Ophrys, 43-57.
13
Duranty, Alessandro (1997). Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: University Press.
Eckkrammer, Eva-Martha et al. 1999. Kontrastive Textologie. Wien: Praesens.
Fauconnier, Gilles (1997). Manifestations linguistiques de l'intégration conceptuelle. In Fuchs, Catherine and Robert,
Stéphane (eds). Diversité des langues et représentations cognitives. Gap-Paris: Ophrys, 182-193.
Fuchs, Catherine (1997). Diversité des représentations linguistiques : quels enjeux pour la cognition? In Fuchs,
Catherine and Robert, Stéphane (eds). Diversité des langues et représentations cognitives. Gap-Paris: Ophrys, 5-24.
Halliday, Michael A.K. (1985). An Introduction in Functional Grammar. Londres: E. Arnold.
Kleiber, Georges (1990). La sémantique du prototype, Catégories et sens lexical. Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France.
(1997). Sens, référence et existence. Langages 127, 9-37.
Lakoff, George (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University Press.
(1997). Les universaux de la pensée métaphorique: variations dans l'expression linguistique. In Fuchs, Catherine
and Robert, Stéphane (eds). Diversité des langues et représentations cognitives. Gap-Paris: Ophrys, 165-181.
Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark (1985). Les métaphores de la vie quotidienne. Paris: Minuit.
(1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. New-York: Basic Books.
Langacker, Ronald W. (1987 reprint 1999). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, 2 vol. Stanford: University Press.
Nerlich, Brigitte and Clarke, David (1999). Champ, schéma, sujet: les contributions de Bühler, Bartlett et Benveniste
à une linguistique du texte. Langue Française 121, 36-55.
Pentcheva, Maya and Shopov, Todor (1999). Whole Language, Whole Person. A Handbook of Language Teaching
Methodology. Viseu, Passagem Editores.
Portine, Henri (1994). La notion d'énonciation et l'évolution de la didactique des langues. In Flament, Danièle (ed).
Théories, données et pratiques en FLE. Lille: PU du Septentrion, 39-60.
Spaeth, Albert (1964). La version et le vocabulaire allemand, groupés par centres d'intérêt. Grenoble: Didier &
Richard.
Thiry, Paul et al. (1999). Vocabulaire français. Trouver et choisir le mot juste. Bruxelles: Duculot.
Thomas, Francis-Noël and Turner, Mark (1995). Clear and Simple as the Truth. Writing Classic Prose. Princeton
(NJ): University Press.
Turner, Mark (1996). The Litterary Mind. New-York-Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2000). L'imagination et la créativité. Lectures at the Collège de France, Paris, june 2000. On line (may 2007):
http://www.bepress.com/casbs/monograph-imagination/.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1988). The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam-Philadelphie: Benjamins.
14
Appendix 1: Extract from Spaeth (1964: 1)
Appendix 2: Extract from Spaeth (1964: 6)
Ein Grossvater zu haben, ist wunderschön…
Mit allen Sorgen und Fragen konnte man zu ihm kommen: er wusste für alles einen Rat und hatte immer ein liebes
Wort für uns. Und was für schöne Dinge er machen konnte! Die herrlichen Drachen, dir so hoch wie der Kirchturm
steigen konnten… Und Ziehharmonika konnte er auch spielen, und wir Kinder sangen und tanzten dazu um den
grossen Lindenbaum herum…
(Dauthendey, no ref.)
To have a grandfather is marvellous…
We could go and find him with all sorts of worries and questions: he always had good advice to give us, a kind word
to say to us. And the beautiful things he could do! Those superb kites, which could rise up as high as the church
bell… And he could also play the accordion, and we children never missed the opportunity to sing and dance around
the lime tree…
Appendix 3: Extract from Spaeth (1964: 7)
Eine Hochzeit im Schwarzwald
Die Glocken laüten, und von ihren Häusern herab zur Kirche ins Tal steigen die Alten und die Jungen im festlichen
Kleid. Aber unbeweglich und wie aus Holz geschnitzt sind die von Arbeit und Schiksal harten Gesichter…
(A. Lämmle, Die Reise ins Schwabenland, Fleischhauer & Spohn Verlag, Stuttgart, 1949)
A marriage in Swabia
The bells ring, and from the house come young and old, going down to the church, in the valley, in festival costume.
But the faces, wrinkled by work and fate, are impassive, and as if carved in wood… (A. Lämmle, Journey to
Swabia…)
15
Abstract
Within the frame of the cognitive and textual renewal we are witnessing in linguistics, we aim to
study the articulations and transfers (effective or desirable) between theories and applications, in
order to progress in the direction of a resemantization of linguistic appropriations (namely
language acquisition and learning). On the one hand, the (re) emergence of the intercultural
problematics in communication and discourse studies, on the other, the abundance of works on
(conceptual) metaphors allows us to put forward propositions in the lexical domain. Thus, we
want to exceed the limits of a lexical semantic theory --and methodology-- based on the
description of distinctive features, in favour of the family likeness, where metaphors play an
important role in terms of meaning, reference (oblique) categorizations and (inaccurate)
designations. We illustrate our propositions with various case studies, namely by examples of
metaphoric expressions.