Zoomorfismos fraseológicos del español y del polaco: un estudio contrastivo desde el punto de vista de la lingüística cultural
Phraseological units with zoosemic terms relative to human being in Polish and Spanish languages: a contrastive study in the framework of Cultural Linguistics

Author(s): Agnieszka Szyndler
Subject(s): Language studies, Language and Literature Studies, Applied Linguistics
Published by: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego
Keywords: phraseological units; zoosemic terms; Polish; Spanish
Summary/Abstract: The aim of the very publication is to analyse the selected phraseological unitsincluding names of animals and having a metaphorical basis (A HUMAN BEING ASAN ANIMAL) both in the Polish and Spanish language, that is, languages inscribedin the same European frame: a macro system (see Wilk-Racięska, 2009). However,in spite of the fact that this culture has been shaped by a common philosophicalsystem, between these two European communities may exist cultural differences,reflected in the linguistic forms.The corpus of this study is selected from Polish-Spanish dictionaries (both monolingualand bilingual), as well as from Internet publications and even blogs, and itis constituted both by stereotyped comparisons as phraseological units (hereinafterPhUs) whose area of motivation is the wildlife, that is stable and fixed linguisticunits referred to different human characteristics. In other words, the phraseologicalmanipulations or creative, conscious and voluntary modifications, created ad hoc inthe concrete contextual circumstances remain outside the analysis.Moreover, in order to maintain methodological consistency and clarity, the authorfocuses on the Standard Peninsular Spanish. However, in some cases she alludesto the PhUs typical of Latin America for the purpose of highlighting that evenin the same micro system (in this case the Spanish one) certain human qualities canbe conceptualized in different ways.The analysis of Spanish and Polish PhUs with zoosemic terms is carried out inthe area of Cognitive Linguistics, particularly Cognitive Semantics, as well as adoptsthe theoretical framework of Cultural Linguistics, a holistic study which allows thelinguist to observe and analyse the language and its phenomena from differentperspectives (Wilk-Racięska, 2009).The study of the mentioned type of PhUs is preceded by a theoretical introduction,made up of six chapters, each of which addresses a particular issue ofphraseology. The first chapter introduces into some basic assumptions of culturallinguistics and focuses on the cultural aspects of the phraseology and on its mixedstatus, both cultural and linguistic. The typology of cultural phenomena, which playa decisive role in the description of the figurative language, is presented accordingto D.O. Dobrovol’skij and E. Piirainen (2005).The second chapter presents a historical outline of studies on phraseology, mainlyin Spanish and Polish fields, with particular reference to the works on zoomorphisms.Given the fact that the very concept of phraseology, its linguistic status and limitsas well as the nature of fixed linguistic units is still a matter of polemic, in thethird chapter, the author discusses these issues in detail, paying a special attentionto different classifications and delimitations of the PhUs (proposed by G. CorpasPastor, E.T. Montoro del Arco, M.A. Castillo Carballo, L. Timofeeva) and to theirstructural and semantic properties. The author describes which structural and semanticfeatures are necessary for the linguistic unit to be considered a phraseologicalone and which of them obtain a rank of potential properties.The most convincing seems to be Montoro del Arco’s conception (2005, 2006)who postulates a classification of phraseological units both in the horizontal level(nivel horizontal), related to a varied syntagmatic units, and in the vertical one (nivelvertical), composed by the units which are structurally identical but present a certaindegree of stability and idiomaticity.Chapter four is devoted to the metaphoric and metonymic nature of phraseology.The author briefly discusses the Cognitive Theory of Metaphor proposed byG. Lakoff and M. Johnson (1986) and its subsequent modifications: an iconic modeland archimetaphors created by E.M. Iñesta Mena and A. Pamies Bertrán (2002).Given that some PhUs with zoosemic terms are motivated both metaphorically andmetonymically, the author introduces the concept of metaphtonymy as well.The next two chapters address the issue of figurativeness, phraseological idiomaticityand motivation in the framework of the Cognitive Linguistics (The ConventionalFigurative Language Theory created by D.O. Dobrovol’skij and E. Piirainen,2005; types of idiomaticity proposed by A.N. Baránov y D.O. Dobrovol’skij,1998) and their interrelationships. The author proves that both figurativenessand idiomaticity are a gradual phenomena and cannot be equated with lack ofliteralness.Taking into consideration the semantic and pragmatic nature of the proposedphraseological analysis, the fifth chapter presents the model of phraseological meaningcreated by L. Timofeeva (2008). The linguist’s theory, based on the works ofS. Levinson (1989, 2004 [2000]), indicates the complexity of phraseological meaningand suggests the existence of its two levels: 1) semantic one, inspired by the “dictionary”meaning of a PhU and affected by a number of different types of information(denotative, connotative, evaluative, stylistic, etc.; 2) pragmatic one, which illustratesthe role of communicative context in the interpretation (and modification) of theconcrete PhU’s meaning.The seventh chapter is the transition from theory to practice. Having submittedthe methodological guidelines of the study, the author goes into the onomasiologicalanalysis of zoomorphisms divided according to the conceptual domain in whichthey are enrolled: 1) PhUs referred to mental faculties, 2) PhUs referred to ways ofmovement, 3) PhUs referred to physical appearance, 4) PhUs referred to physicalsensations and physiological activities, 5) PhUs referred to emotions, 6) PhUs whichdo not belong to the concrete conceptual domain but their phraseological meaningis modified to some extent by communicative context.The zoomorphisms are investigated not only from the semantic point of view(denotative and connotative meaning, idiomatic figuration and motivation) but alsofrom a pragmatic dimension, that is, from the real usage of language (the secondlevel of analysis). The author describes contextual inferences developed inside a majorstatement as well as presents Polish PhUs which belong to the same conceptualdomain. In order to find similarities and differences between the conceptualizationof these two micro systems, Polish phraseological units are investigated not onlyfrom the point of view of their metaphorical basis but also from their mental image(conceptual structure). This image is contrasted with earlier investigated SpanishPhUs. It is worth mentioning that the present publication is merely of linguistic,not translational, nature, hence the issue of equivalence and (un) translatability ofthese units is beyond the scope of this study.Given the fact that “deeply hidden elements of the macro vision have a hugeimpact on pragmatics, that is, on how we use language” (Wilk-Racięska, 2009: 24),the last chapter is devoted to the pragmatic analysis of the PhUs. It aims to showthat the implicature of a certain phraseological unit is not always fixed, fully conventionalized,in a sense, “resistant” to the particular communicative context. Thereare PhUs whose implicatures, especially those with an emotive and emotional character,are susceptible to certain modifications (generalized conversational implicatures),sometimes in a concrete statement a given expression takes on a new meaning,“generated” in a particular context (particularised conversational implicatures).The analysis shows that phraseology reflects the cultural and national selfconsciousnessof a given language community, as well as illustrates the imageryand expressiveness of language and is associated with a specific valuation. Thevast majority of analyzed PhUs are motivated metaphorically, only a few are ofboth metaphorical and metonymical nature at the same time (metaphtonymy). Itis worth pointing out that if on the general level Polish and Spanish PhUs donot show significant differences, a deeper analysis of their imaginary componentand metaphorical base (as well as contextual differences) seems to contradict thisassumption.As far as motivation of PhUs is concerned, both Polish and Spanish zoomorphismsare more often iconically motivated (especially those that fall within thedomain of PHYSICAL APPEARANCE), i.e. are based on direct human experienceand emerge from the observation of the world (general knowledge of the animals’appearance, behavior and habits). On the other hand, some of the analyzed PhUspresent symbolic motivation based on cultural conventions, common beliefs andcustoms (e.g. astuto como un zorro= sprytny/przebiegły jak lis). Also, there are cases inwhich two types of motivation are mixed, especially the iconic with the symbolicor the iconic with the intertextual one: estar como un jabato/ser (hecho) un jabato, serun burro cargado de letras, ser/parecer más burro que un ara(d)o, ver(le) las orejas al lobo,lento como un caracol, oczy gazeli, mądra jak flądra, wolny jak ślimak.All this confirms that examining the relationship between the figurative meaningof the PhU and the image component which forms its conceptual structure, weshould keep in mind that sometimes it is difficult to determine a sharp line betweenthese two types of motivation (iconic and symbolic one) as they are intertwined.Frequently, the expressions, whose motivation could be defined on the basis ofknowledge of the world, over time can become historically entrenched and culturallymotivated units.Another conclusion which emerges from the study is that Polish and Spanishlanguages do not always express a particular human quality by the same zoosemicterm. PhUs do not have to be universal or based on a common cultural heritage.These differences and discrepancies exist due to different semantic presuppositionsconcerning the figurative meaning of particular groups of animals (seeBartoš, 2000: 7). A given PhU, even seemingly based on cultural conventions, canvery often refer to totally different features (e.g. lexeme sowa [owl], which in thePolish language is a symbol of wisdom but in Spanish, lechuza, has a diverse connotativemeanings, or the expression ser un besugo <być leszczem> [to be a red seabream] which in Spanish means a person of low intelligence, and in Polish profilesdifferent qualities.Thus, a given feature can be expressed by a PhU whose zoosemic component inone language seems to be more productive than in the other (e.g. tener una cabezade chorlito, tener menos seso que un mosquito or parecer una ardilla, in Spanish; głupijak cięlę (na niedzielę), mądry/a jak dwie flądry, in Polish) and/or tends to developmore metaphorical uses in the specific communicative context (privative opposition):BORREGO vs. BARANEK, CABRA vs. KOZA, GANSO vs. GĘŚ, jeść jak ptaszek/jakwróbelek/jak kurczę vs. comer como un pajarito.Moreover, the study confirms that in many cases, Spanish and Polish idiomsonly seem to have the same denotative and connotative meaning, while in fact theypresent more or less clear differences in both metaphorical basis and underlyingmental image (imaginary component): ponerse más colorado que un pavo, estar/ponersecolorado/encarnado/rojo como un pavo vs. czerwony jak indyk, zaczerwienić się jak indyk;ir para atrás como los cangrejos/ir como los cangrejos vs. chodzić jak rak/iść/ posuwać się/pełznąć rakiem/raczkiem. It is worth mentioning that even within the Spanish languageand its dialectal variants, a given PhU very often may have different connotations,or shades of meaning: ser muy ganso, hacer el oso.The analyses and studies presented in the work point out that there exist similaritiesand parallels between the lexical and phraseological Spanish and Polishsystems. In both languages PhUs of negative valuation, which characterize a humanbeing in a pejorative way, dominate heavily. On the other hand, differencesin phraseological motivation, specific mental image and functional factors existingbetween PhUs of these two languages can be indicated as well. This is undoubtedlyrelated to the vision of the world and its limitations.

• Details
• Contents