Email this article Knowledge reconstruction in dictionary entries: A case of cognitively-motivated onomasiology in Microsoft Azure Glossary of need-to-know cloud computing terminology
Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to investigate the manner in which a dictionary, considered here a type of specialist text, may prove an applicable tool of knowledge reconstruction. It is suggested that the role of dictionary entries is not delimited to mere denotations of concepts. Rather, terms included in dictionaries are approached as access points to conceptual structures and, as such, instantiations of specialist (specialists’) knowledge. The paper seeks to account for the conceptual motivation behind the semantics of lexical items in the target domain of cloud computing and it is assumed that reconstructing a portion of specialist extralinguistic reality is facilitated through cognitively-motivated onomasiology. To that end, it is postulated that onomasiological concrete-to-abstract directionality may be lexicalised in dictionary entries through cognitively-motivated tools such as conceptual metaphors and image schemas. In the cognitive-linguistic view, our conceptual structure is organised through conceptual metaphors which may not be comprehended independently of their experiential basis. Therefore, the treatment of lexical items in this paper is cognitive-linguistic in spirit. Dictionary entries were checked for potential lexicalisations of cognitively-motivated onomasiology using the methodological apparatus offered by Pragglejaz Group’s MIP metaphor identification procedure and Charteris-Black’s CMA corpus approach to metaphor analysis.
References
Charteris-Black J. 2004, Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Dorst A. 2011, Personification in discourse: Linguistic forms, conceptual structures and
communicative functions, in “Language and Literature” 20 [2], pp. 113-135.
Garzone G. 2021, Rethinking metaphors in COVID-19 communication, in “Lingue e Linguaggi” 44, 159-181.
Geeraerts D. 2010, Theories of Lexical Semantics, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Geeraerts D. and Cuyckens H. 2010, The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Grondelaers S. and Geeraerts D. 2003, Towards a pragmatic model of cognitive onomasiology, in Cuyckens L.H., Dirven R. and Taylor J. (eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics, De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin/New York, pp. 67-92.
Johnson M. 1987, The Body in the Mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Koch P. 2008, Cognitive onomasiology and lexical change, in Vanhove M. (ed.), From Polysemy to Semantic Change: Towards a Typology of Lexical Semantic Change, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 107-138.
Konieczna E. 2020, Verticality as an experiential basis for non-spatial relationships in English and Polish: the principled polysemy model. A case study of verbal particles and prefixes, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego, Rzeszów.
Kövecses Z. 2005, Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York.
Kövecses Z. 2010, Metaphor: A practical introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kövecses, Z. 2022, Extended CMT and the dynamic systems theory of metaphor, in Colston H.L., Matlock T. and Steen G.J. (eds.), Dynamism in metaphor and beyond, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 131-142.
Krawiec M. 2022, Conceptual Metaphors as an Organisational Framework of the Specialist Language of IT. An Analysis of Cloud Computing Terminology, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage, Göttingen.
Krzeszowski T.P. 1997, Angels and Devils in Hell: Elements of Axiology in Semantics, Wydawnictwo Energeia, Warszawa.
Lakoff G. 1987, Women, Fire and Dangerous Things, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lakoff G. 1993, The contemporary theory of metaphor, in Ortony A. (ed.) Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 202-251.
Lakoff G. and Johnson M. 1980, Metaphors We Live By, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London.
Lakoff G. and Turner M. 1989, More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor, Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Nerlich B. and Clarke D.D. 1992, Outline of a model for semantic change, in Kellermann G. and Morrissey M.D. (eds.), Diachrony without Synchrony: Language History and Cognition (Papers from the International Symposium at the University of Duisburg, 26-28 March 1990), Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 125-144.
Pragglejaz Group 2007, A practical and flexible method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse, in “Metaphor and Symbol” 23 [1], pp. 1-39.
Steen G.J. 1999, From linguistic to conceptual metaphor in five steps. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, in Gibbs R.W.J. and Steen G.J. (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Current Issues in Linguistics, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Steen G.J., Dorst A.G., Herrmann J.B., Kaal A.A. and Krennmayr T. 2010, Metaphor in usage, in “Cognitive Linguistics” 21, pp. 765-796.
Sweetser E.E. 1990, From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Zabawa M. 2018, COMPUTERS ARE HUMANS: on conceptual metaphors in the semantic field of computers and the Internet in Polish, in “Linguistica Silesiana” 39, pp. 249-266.
Zabawa M. 2019, COMPUTERS ARE BUILDINGS: on conceptual metaphors in the semantic field of computers and the Internet in Polish, in “Linguistica Silesiana” 40, pp. 205-224.
Full Text: PDF
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
