A multilevel cognitive model of coming out
Tomasz Dyrmo
Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w PoznaniuAbstract
The article explores coming out narratives, as its starting point employing a multilevel
approach to this phenomenon in line with a model proposed by Zoltan Kӧvecses (2017),
applying image schemas, domains and frames, and metaphor scenarios. It describes how
these levels interact with each other to construe the metaphoric meaning at the level
of mental structures which motivate linguistic choices in coming out narratives concerning
sexual orientation or gender identity. The analysis of the linguistic material reveals that
highly individualised coming out narratives are underpinned by less complex cognitive
mechanisms.
Keywords:
coming out, conceptual metaphor, iteraction, multilevel metaphorReferences
Chirrey A.D. (2020). Metaphors we come out by: how structural metaphors construct coming out in internet advice texts. “Gender and Language” 14(1), pp. 8–27.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Cienki A.J. (2005): Image schemas and gesture. [In:] From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. B. Hampe (ed). Berlin, pp. 421–442.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Cienki A. (2013): Image schemas and mimetic schemas in cognitive linguistics and gesture studies. “Review of Cognitive Linguistics”11(2), pp. 417–432.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Dorst A.G., Mulder G., Steen G.J. (2011): Recognition of personifications in fiction by non-expert readers. “Metaphor and the Social World” 1(2), pp. 174–200.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Dyrmo T. (2022): Gestural metaphorical scenarios and coming out narratives. “Metaphor and the Social World” 12(1), pp. 23–45.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Guittar N. (2014): Coming out: The new dynamics. London.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Fillmore C.J. (1976): Frame semantics and the nature of language. “Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences” 280, pp. 20–32.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Fillmore C.J. (2003a): Valence and semantic roles: the concept of deep structure case. [In:] Dependency and Valency. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Vol. 2. V. Agel et al. (eds). Berlin, pp. 457–475. Google Scholar
Fillmore C.J. (2003b): Double-decker definitions: The role of frames in meaning explanations. “Sign Language Studies” 3(3), pp. 263–295.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Fillmore Ch. (1982): Frame semantics. Seoul, pp. 111–135. Google Scholar
Geeraerts D. (2006): Introduction. A rough guide to cognitive linguistics. [In:] Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. D. Geeraerts (ed). Berlin, pp. 1–28.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Grady J. (1997): Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary Scenes. PhD Dissertation. Google Scholar
Hampe B. (2005): Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics: Introduction. [In:] From Perception to Meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. B. Hampe (ed.). Berlin, pp. 1–14.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Johnson M. (1987): The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Johnson M. (2017): Embodied mind, meaning, and reason: How our bodies give rise to understanding. Chicago.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Klein K., Holtby A., Cook K., Travers R. (2015): Complicating the coming out narrative: Becoming oneself in a heterosexist and cissexist world. “Journal of Homosexuality” 62(3), pp. 297–326.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Kövecses Z. (2017): Levels of metaphor. “Cognitive Linguistics” 28(2), pp. 321–347.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Kövecses Z. (2020a): An extended view of conceptual metaphor theory. “Review of Cognitive Linguistics” 18(1), pp. 112–130.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Kövecses Z. (2020b): Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Lakoff G. (2010): Why it matters how we frame the environment. “Environmental Communication” 4(1), pp. 70–81.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Lakoff G., Johnson M. (1980): Metaphors we live by. Chicago. Google Scholar
Langacker R. (1987): Foundations of cognitive grammar. Standford. Google Scholar
Lederer J. (2019): Gesturing the source domain: The role of co-speech gesture in the metaphorical models of gender transition. “Metaphor and the Social World” 9(1), pp. 33–59.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Littlemore J. (2015): Metonymy: hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Lovelock M. (2017): ‘My coming out story’: Lesbian, gay and bisexual youth identities on YouTube. “International Journal of Cultural Studies” 22(1), pp. 70–85.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Motschenbacher H. (2010): Language, gender and sexual identity: Poststructuralist perspectives. Amsterdam.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Musolff A. (2016): Political metaphor analysis: Discourse and scenarios. London. Google Scholar
Musolff A. (2017): Truths, lies and figurative scenarios: Metaphors at the heart of Brexit. “Journal of Language and Politics” 16(5), pp. 641–657.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Pagán Cánovas C. (2016): Rethinking image schemas: Containment and emotion in Greek poetry. “Journal of Literary Semantics” 45(2), pp. 117–139.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Peña Cervel M.S. (2004): The image-schematic basis of the EVENT STRUCTURE metaphor. “Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics” 2, pp. 127–158.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Peña Cervel M.S. (2008): Dependency systems for image-schematic patterns in a usage-based approach to language. “Journal of Pragmatics” 40(6), pp. 1041–1066.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Pérez Hernández L., Ruiz de Mendoza F.J. (2002): Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction in indirect directive speech acts. “Journal of Pragmatics” 34(3), pp. 259–284.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Reddy M. (1979): The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. [In:] Metaphor and thought. A. Ortony (ed). Cambridge, pp. 284–324. Google Scholar
Rosch E. (1978): Principles of categorization. [In:] Cognition and categorisation. E. Rosch, B. Llyod (eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 27–48. Google Scholar
Roush D.R. (2018): Event structure metaphors through the body: Translation from English to American Sign Language. Amsterdam.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Semino E. (2005): The metaphorical construction of complex domains: The case of speech activity in English. “Metaphor and Symbol” 20(1), pp. 35–70.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Semino E. (2010): Descriptions of pain, metaphor, and embodied simulation. “Metaphor and Symbol” 25(4), pp. 205–226.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Slepian M.L., Masicampo E.J., Toosi N.R., Ambady N. (2012): The physical burdens of secrecy. “Journal of Experimental Psychology: General” 141(4), pp. 619–624.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Szwedek A. (2011): The ultimate source domain. “Review of Cognitive Linguistics” 9(2), pp. 341–366.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Szwedek A. (2019): Complex image schemas. “Półrocznik Językoznawczy Tertium” 4(1), pp. 1–11.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Talmy L. (1988): Force dynamics in language and cognition. “Cognitive Science” 12(1), pp. 49–100.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Talmy L. (2015): Relating language to other cognitive systems: An overview. “Cognitive Semantics” 1(1), pp. 1–44.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Tay D. (2018): Metaphors of movement in psychotherapy talk. “Journal of Pragmatics”125, pp. 1–12.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Trim R. (2007): Metaphor networks: The comparative evolution of figurative language. New York.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.