Proposal for a Workshop at the
Seventh International Conference on Researching and Applying Metaphor (RaAM 7)
Metaphor in Cross-Cultural Communication
University of Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain
May 29-31, 2008
„Conceptual metaphor and metonymy as motivating principles in gestural communication:
Evidence from English, Spanish, and German“
Conveners:
Cornelia Müller, European University Viadrina, Frankfurt/Oder
Mail: cmueller@euv-frankfurt-o.de
Irene Mittelberg, European University Viadrina, Frankfurt/Oder
Mail: irene.mittelberg@gmail.com
Irene Mittelberg
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Cornelia Müller
European University Viadrina, Frankfurt/Oder
Sedinha Teßendorf
European University Viadrina, Frankfurt/Oder
Metaphor and metonymy have been shown to motivate expressions in verbal as well as non-verbal
modalities. While multimodal metaphor has received considerable attention from various perspectives
(Forceville 2005, Forceville & Urios-Aparisi fc.; Cienki 1998, 2005; Cienki & Müller fc., Müller fc.;
Müller 1998, 2003, fc.; Sweetser 1998), research on how metaphor and metonymy interact in process
of meaning-making has predominantly focused on spoken and written language (e.g., Barcelona 2000;
Dirven & Pőrings 2002; Gibbs 1994; Goosens et al. 1995; Lakoff 1987; Panther & Thornburg 2004;
Panther & Radden 1999; Radden 2000; Turner & Fauconnier 2002).
This theme session takes the notion of embodiment, which is central to cognitivist approaches
to language and cognition, literally and investigates instantiations of figurative thought in messages
consisting of spoken discourse and its accompanying spontaneous manual gestures. Exploring the
interaction between conceptual metaphor and metonymy in multimodal discourse in several European
languages, the session is aimed at identifying ways in which co-speech gesture has the potential to
shed light on claims primarily based on linguistic inquiry. The underlying assumption is that whereas
conceptual metaphor is central to accessing and structuring abstract domains (Bouvet 2001; Calbris
2003; Cienki 1998, 2005; McNeill 1992, 2005; Müller 1998, fc.; Nuñez & Sweetser 2006; Sweetser
1998, 2007; Taub 2001; P. Wilcox 2004; S. Wilcox 2004), metonymy plays an important role regarding
the formation of gestural signs (Bouvet 2001, Gibbs 1994; Müller 1998, fc.), different techniques and
modes of representation (Müller 1998, fc.), as well as regarding crossmodal modes of indirect
reference and pragmatic inferencing (Mittelberg 2006; Mittelberg & Waugh fc.). It has also been
suggested that metonymy, in addition to metaphor, plays a central role in the motivation of pragmatic
functions in co-verbal gestures (Teßendorf, fc.). Metonymy thus appears as a central conceptual
process motivating semantic as well as pragmatic meaning. It is thus not surprising that sign linguists
have underlined that through the interaction with iconicity and metaphor, metonymy also crucially
participates in meaning construction in signed languages (P. Wilcox 2004; Wilcox & Morford 2007).
The objective of this theme session is at least two-fold: first, to investigate in detail how
exactly metaphor and metonymy interact in bimodal instances of meaning-making, thus identifying the
different semantic and pragmatic functions metaphor and metonymy appear to assume therein.
Second, taking a comparative perspective, the intent is to highlight possible idiosyncrasies as well as
commonalities across the languages under investigation.
The workshop will begin with a paper by Cornelia Müller, which introduces the fundamental role of
metonymy in the creation of gestural signs based on data from German and Spanish speakers. More
specifically the paper spells out the techniques humans employ when turning a manual movement into
gesture. These techniques resemble the ones artists use when transforming a perceived or conceived
object into a sketch, a painting or a sculpture and they are termed gestural modes of representation
(GMR). Four modes of representation are distinguished: the hands may be used to model a three
dimensional object, they may outline or draw its oval or rectangular shape, they may embody the
object and hence turn into sculptures themselves or they may reenact actions such as opening a
window or turning a car key. Drawing upon work in Gestalt-Psychology of Art (Gombrich 1978,
Arnheim 1972, 1978) it will be suggested that gestural modes of representation imply
conceptualizations of perceived (and conceived) objects and events in the world and their fundamental
principle is conceptual metonymy. Metonymy is thus a fundamental principle of gesture creation
underlying gestures referring to concrete as well as to abstract entities and events.
In the second paper Sedinha Teßendorf will focus more specifically on the interplay between
conceptual metaphor and metonymy. A qualitative study regarding the motivation of functional
variations of a recurrent pragmatic gesture prominent in Spanish everyday conversation will be
presented (Teßendorf fc.). It will be proposed that the ‘brushing aside gesture’ is based on an
everyday action or “manipulation” (Streeck 1994), which consists of brushing small, annoying objects
aside. The gesture is linked to this action through iconicity: a quick flick of the hand away from one’s
body is carried out, using the most prominent formal feature of the basic action. Other more or less
implicit characteristics of the action, such as the objects which are brushed aside, the attitude of the
actor/speaker towards these objects and the goal of the action (finishing an unpleasant state of being)
are transposed metonymically into the realm of gestural communication. The transformation of the
action into a gesture, now acting upon speech, has been regarded as an expression of the underlying
conceptual metaphor IDEAS (OR MEANINGS) ARE OBJECTS (Lakoff & Johnson 2003; McNeill
1992, 2005). Even though this conceptual metaphor appears to be essential for the brushing aside
gesture, it does not account for all functional variations of this pragmatic gesture and it is here where
metonymy comes into play (cf. Panther & Thornburg 2003).
The workshop will close with a paper by Irene Mittelberg, which elaborates on additional and specific
aspects of conceptual metonymy involved in the motivation of metaphoric gestures and of crossmodal
modes of indirect reference and pragmatic inferencing
References:
Bouvet, D. (2001). La dimension corporelle de la parole. Les marques posturo-mimo-gestuelles de la parole, leurs
aspects métonymiques et métaphoriques, et leur rôle au cours d’un récit. Paris: Peeters.
Calbris, G. (2003). From cutting an object to a clear cut analysis: Gesture as the representation of a
preconceptual schema linking concrete actions to abstract notions. Gesture 3 (1), 19-46.
Cienki, A. (1998). “Metaphoric gestures and some of their relations to verbal metaphoric expressions. In
Discourse and Cognition: Bridging the Gap, J.-P. Koenig (ed.). Stanford: CSLI Publications, 189-204.
Cienki, A. (2005). Image schemas and gesture. In: From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive
Linguistics, B. Hampe (ed.). Berliln/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cienki, A. & Müller, C. (Eds.) (fc.). Metaphor and Gesture. Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins.
Forceville, C. (2006). Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research. In
Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives. Gitte Kristiansen, Michel Achard, René
Dirven, and Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (eds.), 379–402. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gibbs, R.W., Jr. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Goossens, L., P. Pauwels, B. Rudzka-Ostyn, A.-S. Simon-Vandenbergen, and J. Vanparys (eds.) (1995). By
Word of Mouth: Metaphor, Metonymy and Linguistic Action in a Cognitive Perspective.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Jakobson, R. (1956/1990). „Two Aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasic Disturbances.“ In Roman
Jakobson, On Language. L.R. Waugh and M. Monville-Burston (Eds.). Cambridge/London: Harvard
University Press, 115-133.
Johnson, M. (1987) The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, M. (2005) The philosophical significance of image schemas. In B. Hampe (ed.) in cooperation with J.
Grady, From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics 15--33. Berlin/New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson (2003): Metaphors we live by. With a new afterword. Chicago: Chicago University
Press.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1999) Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western
Thought. New York: Basic Books.
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind: What Gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
McNeill, D. (2005). Gesture and Thought. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Mittelberg, I. (2006) Metaphor and Metonymy in Language and Gesture: Discourse Evidence for Multimodal
Models of Grammar. Unpubl. Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell University.
Mittelberg, I. (fc.). Peircean semiotics meets conceptual metaphor: Analyses of gestural represenations of
grammar. In: Metaphor and Gesture. C. Müller & A. Cienki (Eds.). Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins.
Mittelberg, I. & Waugh, L.R. (fc.). Multimodal figures of thought: A cognitive-semiotic approach to metaphor and
metonymy in co-speech gesture. In: Forceville, C. & E. Urios-Aparisi (eds.), Multimodal Metaphor.
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Müller, C. (1998). Redebegleitende Gesten. Kulturgeschichte - Theorie - Sprachvergleich. Berlin: Berlin Verlag A.
Spitz.
Müller, C. (2007) A dynamic view on gesture, language and thought. In: S.D. Duncan, J. Cassell & E.T. Levy
(eds.) Gesture and the dynamic dimension of language. Essays in honor of David McNeill.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 109-116.
Müller, C. (fc.). Metaphors. Dead and alive, sleeping and waking. A cognitive approach to metaphors in language
use. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Müller, C. (fc.). Modes of representation as creative devices in gestures and signed languages. To appear in
Gesture.
Müller, C. (fc.). How hand movements turn into gesture: gestural modes of representation as metonymic
resources of gesture creation. In: : Mittelberg, I. & C. Müller (eds.) Metonymy in Gesture and Sign, Special
Issue. CogniTextes.
Núñez, R.E. & E.E. Sweetser (2006). “Aymara, Where the Future is Behind You: Convergent Evidence from
Language and Gesture in the Cross-Linguistic Comparison of Spatial Construals of Time.” Cognitive
Science, 30: 1-49.
Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L.L. (Eds.) (2003): Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Panther, K.-U. & Thornburg, L.L. (2004). „The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction.“
Metaphorik.de, 06/2004, 91-113.
Radden, G. (2000). “How metonymic are metaphors?” In Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive
Perspective. A. Barcelona (Ed.), Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 93-98.
Sweetser, E. (1998). „Regular metaphoricity in gesture: bodily-based models of speech interaction.“ Actes du 16e
Congrès International des Linguistes (CD-ROM), Elsevier.
Sweetser, E. (2007). Looking at space to study mental spaces: Co-speech gesture as a crucial data source in
cognitive linguistics.” In Methods in Cognitive Linguistics, M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson,
and M. Spivey (eds.), 201-224. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Streeck, Jürgen (1994): „Speech-handling“: The metaphorical representation of speech in gesture. A crosscultural study. MS
Taub, S. (2001). Language from the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Teßendorf, S. (fc.). Research in recurrent coverbal gestures: the case of the Spanish 'brushing aide gesture'. In:
Bressem, J. & S. Ladewig (eds.) Recurrence in coverbal gestures – investigating form and function.
Teßendorf, S. (fc.). From everyday action to gestural performance: metonymic motivations of a pragmatic gesture.
In: Mittelberg, I. & C. Müller (eds.) Metonymy in Gesture and Sign, Special Issue. CogniTextes.
Turner, M. and G. Fauconnier (2002). Metaphor, metonymy, and binding. In Metaphor and Metonymy in
Comparison and Contrast, René Dirven and Ralf Pörings (eds.) 469–487. Berlin/New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Wilcox, P.P. (2004). “A cognitive key: Metonymic and metaphorical mappings in ASL.” Cognitive Linguistics 15
(2): 197-222.
Wilcox, S. and J. Morford (2007). Empirical methods in signed language research. In Methods in Cognitive
Linguistics, M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson, and M. J. Spivey (eds.), 171–200. Amsterdam
/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.