Wielopoziomowy kognitywny model coming outu

Tomasz Dyrmo

Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu


Abstrakt

Biorąc za punkt wyjścia wielopoziomowe podejście do metafory pojęciowej, niniejszy
artykuł przedstawia analizę narracji coming outu zgodnie z modelem zaproponowanym
przez Zoltana Kӧvecsesa (2017), począwszy od schematów wyobrażeniowych, poprzez
domeny, ramy i scenariusze metaforyczne. Artykuł opisuje, w jaki sposób te poziomy
wzajemnie na siebie oddziałują i współtworzą znaczenia metaforyczne na poziomie
struktur mentalnych, które motywują wybory językowe w narracjach ujawniania
orientacji seksualnej bądź tożsamości płciowej. Analiza materiału językowego pozwala
na stwierdzenie, że wysoko zindywidualizowane historie opierają się na powszechnych,
mniej skomplikowanych mechanizmach poznawczych.


Słowa kluczowe:

coming out, metafora pojęciowa, iteracyjność, metafora wielopoziomowa


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


Opublikowane
2022-12-15

Cited By /
Share

Dyrmo, T. (2022). Wielopoziomowy kognitywny model coming outu. Prace Językoznawcze, 24(4), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.31648/pj.8159

Tomasz Dyrmo 
Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu