Miejsce metafor w badaniach nad komunikacją

Autor

  • Mikołaj Domaradzki Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, Instytut Filozofii image/svg+xml

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/0208-6107.25.08

Abstrakt

The purpose of the present paper is to discuss several metaphorical conceptualizations of the phenomenon of communication from the perspective of cognitive linguistics. Apart from the purely linguistic and philosophical issues, the article touches upon the questions that concern the process of teaching and learning a foreign language (especially the so called "radically different one"). The thesis about our essentially metaphorical understanding of the phenomenon of communication, widely acknowledged in cognitive linguistics, is supported by empirical data drawn from Arabic and several Indo-European languages. Subsequently, the thesis is taken as a point of departure for discussing such issues as the problem of cross-linguistic variation of metaphors and their biological motivation. The paper consists of three sections: the first one examines the metaphor of communication as transfer, the second considers the metaphor of communication as enlightening, whereas the third presents some philosophical observations. The most important conclusion that is drawn here has it that the potential universality of various metaphorical conceptualizations is a very useful heuristic and didactic tool, for the existence of a common ground between languages that are genetically unrelated makes it possible not only to account for the ease with which certain elements of the target language can be translated into the source language, but also to hypothesize about the general mechanisms that are responsible for understanding and acquiring the (radically) different target language. Needless to say, such hypotheses are of paramount importance for the process of teaching and learning a foreign (especially radically different) language.

Bibliografia

Abramowiczówna Z. 1965 (red.), Słownik grecko-polski, t. IV, Warszawa.
Google Scholar

Axelsen J. 1995, Dansk-engelsk Ordbog, Kopenhaga.
Google Scholar

Bielawski J. 1986 (tłum.), Koran, Warszawa.
Google Scholar

Chodera J., Kubica S. 1966, Podręczny słownik niemiecko-polski, Warszawa.
Google Scholar

Damasio A.R. 2002, Błąd Kartezjusza. Emocje, rozum i ludzki mózg (tłum. M. Karpiński), Poznań.
Google Scholar

Danecki J. 2001, Gramatyka języka arabskiego, t. I, Warszawa.
Google Scholar

Danecki J., Kozłowska J. 2007, Słownik arabsko-polski, Warszawa.
Google Scholar

Domaradzki M. 2011, The Self in Arabic and the Relativism-Universalism Controversy, „Cognitive Linguistics” 22, s. 535–567.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2011.021

Fakhry M. 2002, An Interpretation of the Qur’an. English Translation of the Meanings.
Google Scholar

A Bilingual Edition, New York.
Google Scholar

Hermann, C.F. 1911, Platonis Dialogi secundum Trasylli tetralogias dispositi, t. IV, Lipsk.
Google Scholar

Jäkel O. 2003, Metafory w abstrakcyjnych domenach dyskursu. Kognitywno-lingwistyczna analiza metaforycznych modeli aktywności umysłowej, gospodarki i nauki (tłum. M. Banaś i B. Drąg), Kraków.
Google Scholar

Knudsen S. 2003, Scientific Metaphors Going Public, „Journal of Pragmatics”, 35, s. 1247–1263.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00187-X

Kulczycki E. 2012, Teoretyzowanie komunikacji, Poznań.
Google Scholar

Kupisz K., Kielski B. 1971, Podręczny słownik francusko-polski, Warszawa.
Google Scholar

Lakoff G. i M. Johnson 1999, Philosophy in the Flesh. The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought, New York.
Google Scholar

Lakoff G. i M. Johnson 2010, Metafory w naszym życiu (tłum. T.P. Krzeszowski), Warszawa.
Google Scholar

Nestle E. 1923 (red.), Novum Testamentum Graece, Stuttgart.
Google Scholar

Ortony A. 1993, (red.), Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge.
Google Scholar

Peter M. i M. Wolniewicz 2004 (red.) Pismo Święte. Stary i Nowy Testament, Poznań.
Google Scholar

Platon 1999, Państwo. Prawa (tłum. W. Witwicki), Kęty.
Google Scholar

Plezia M. 1998a (red.), Słownik łacińsko-polski, t. II, Warszawa.
Google Scholar

Plezia M. 1998b (red.), Słownik łacińsko-polski, t. III, Warszawa.
Google Scholar

Reddy M.J. 1993, The Conduit Metaphor: A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language About
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.012

Language [w:] A. Ortony (red.), Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge 1993, s. 164–201.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865

Ryding K.C. 2005, A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic, Cambridge.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486975

Stanisławski J. 1966, Wielki słownik angielsko-polski, Warszawa.
Google Scholar

Szymczak M. 1989 (red.), Słownik języka polskiego, t. III, Warszawa.
Google Scholar

Wendland M. 2011, Konstruktywizm komunikacyjny, Poznań.
Google Scholar

Yu N. 2003, Chinese Metaphors of Thinking, „Cognitive Linguistics”, 14, s. 141–165.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2003.006

Pobrania

Opublikowane

2012-01-01

Jak cytować

Domaradzki, M. (2012). Miejsce metafor w badaniach nad komunikacją. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Philosophica. Ethica-Aesthetica-Practica, (25), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.18778/0208-6107.25.08

Numer

Dział

Articles