Estudio Cognitivo Contrastivo De Los Proverbios En Espaol Y En ...
46
An analysis of the cognitive dimension of proverbs in English and
Spanish: the conceptual power of language reflecting popular believes
Ana Ibáñez Moreno
In this paper I examine the role of generic cognitive mechanisms in language
structure and use through an analysis of proverbs related to dogs in English and
Spanish. I give an outline of proverb cognition based on universal principles,
which constitutes an alternative view to that of Lakoff & Turner (1989), and is in
line of Ruiz de Mendoza (1999b:54), who puts forward a more economic and
motivated conceptual model. Besides, by means of a corpus of study I carry out
contrastive cognitive and sociolinguistic analysis between English and Spanish
proverbs. Such analysis shows how proverbs share a common underlying schema
of cognition, while they reflect different cultural believes. Thus, proverbs
constitute a rich resource to analyse the way we process experience and
conceptualise the world. The conclusion can be reached that proverbs are a
conceptual universal phenomenon with high communicative and cross-cultural
value.
1. Introduction
In this work, I try to clarify the mental mechanisms that work in proverbs and I discuss
my views on their specific/universal nature. After this I make a comparative analysis
between English and Spanish proverbs, which leads me to conclude that they are a
conceptual universal phenomenon, with high communicative and instructive power.
Even more, they constitute an interesting and informative source of folk knowledge.
The study of proverbs has been approached from many different points of view:
personal, formal, religious, cultural, cognitive, etc. In this work I adopt a cognitive, a
social and a pragmatic view. On the one hand, the cognitive view permits to access the
universal principles that underlie the cognition of proverbs. On the other, the social and
pragmatic view allows us to look beyond the linguistic structure of proverbs in order to
explore the reach amount of background knowledge and cultural beliefs they portray.
Cognitively, proverbs are mentally economical, since from one particular situation
presented in them we can understand many others. Besides, we can activate a whole
scene about a certain event in our minds just through the allusion to a relevant fact or
moment of this one. For instance, in the proverb Blind blames the ditch (Lakoff &
Turner 1989:162) we have a whole scenario in which a blind person has fallen into a
ditch and so he/she is blaming it for that fact, without realising that his/her condition is
what prevented him/her from not falling. The proverb takes us to the moment when the
blind has already fallen, but we can imagine the whole event, starting from the moment
in which the blind was walking and had not still arrived to the ditch. Going further, this
can be applied to any situation in which someone blames others for their own
restrictions.
Pragmatically, proverbs are used for communicative purposes and we need
pragmatic reasoning in order to understand them. That is, they are used with a certain
46
47
communicative aim that transcends their linguistic form and meaning. Besides this, they
reflect an implicit typology of patterns of reasoning or argument. For this and other
reasons, proverbs are interesting to study, since through them we can extract many ideas
on how we think, how we conceptualise and categorise the world, and how we transmit
traditional folk knowledge from generation to generation.
2. Outline of Proverbs Cognition
2.1 How proverbs work.
For the interpretation of proverbs, according to Lakoff (1989) we have the Great Chain
Metaphor. It is composed of the Generic Is Specific metaphor, which picks out from
specific schemas common generic-level structure; the communicative maxim of
Quantity (“Be as informative as is required and not more so”), which limits what can
be understood in terms of what; and the interaction between the Great Chain and the
Nature of Things.
Deriving from the Great Chain of Being we encounter the People Are Animals
metaphor, which is also present in many proverbs. The Great Chain Metaphor’s power
lies on its availability for a big variety of situations with the same generic-level
structure. Thus, the proverb ‘Big thunder, little rain’ can apply to a barking dog and to a
person or even to the weather itself, and the English proverb ‘All bark and no bite’ will
apply to practically all similar situations, except to dogs, unless it is not metaphorical.
2.2 Metaphoric or metonymic?
Lakoff (1989) defines proverbs as metaphoric in nature, but recently there have been
some studies that oppose to this view, and defend that they are metonymic. Metonymy
is as much an important cognitive mechanism as metaphor: in both of them we find a
mapping process, either from a source domain to a target domain or from a target
domain to a source domain. According to Ruiz de Mendoza (1999b: 54), the limits
between metaphor and metonymy are not very clear, since we can use metaphors
predicatively or metonymies referentially, and we can give a potential metonymy a
metaphoric trait, among other things. In fact, the only distinguishing criterion between
metaphor and metonymy is that metonymic mappings are domain internal -they hold a
domain inclusion relationship- while domain external mappings are proper of metaphors
- that is, mapping takes place across domains. This explains why authors like Kövekcses
& Radden (1999) and Panther & Thornburg (1999) seem to defend the view that
metonymy is essential for the interpretation of proverbs. In relation to this, Ruiz de
Mendoza considers that the relationship between the two Idealised Cognitive Models
(hereafter ICM’s) present in proverbs (specific and generic) are in a stand-for-
relationship. Then, instead of the Generic Is Specific metaphor we would have the
Specific for Generic metonymy, applied to a particular situation through the Generic Is
Specific mapping. Proverbs would therefore consist of a source-in-target metonymy
involving domain expansion.
The importance of the relationships which hold between ‘generic’ and ‘specific’ in the
47
48
organisation and processing of information was first noted by Lakoff and Turner (1989).
These authors, however, granted these relationships metaphorical status. More recent
accounts (Kövecses and Radden, 1999; Panther and Thornburg, 1999) have convincingly
argued that the generic/specific distinction is metonymic in nature, ‘specific’ being a
subdomain of ‘generic’. In addition to this observation, we note that the relationship
between these two ICM’s is not and identifying one but rather of the ‘stand-for’ kind.
Kövecses and Radden (1999: 34) have already hinted at the importance of these
metonymies for the interpretation of proverbs (Ruiz de Mendoza 2001b: 4).
Therefore, proverbs make use of high-level metonymies, which are the ones that
implement generic ICM’s (which are abstractions of non-generic ICM’s).
2.3 Conceptual interaction patterns in proverbs.
Goosens (1990) distinguishes four patterns of interaction between metaphor and
metonymy, which Ruiz de Mendoza (1999b) summarises in two, as a result of the
distinction he makes between source-in-target and target-in-source metonymies: “one,
in which the output of a metaphoric mapping provides de source for a metonymy, and
another, in which a metonymic mapping provides the source for a metaphor” (1999a:
19). From all these patterns, the metonymic expansion of the source of a metaphor
provide the relevant material for the construction of a metaphoric mapping which will
produce a generic space. Therefore, these two patterns of interaction are relevant when
we deal with proverbs, since they allow for the use of the Specific For Generic
metonymy that constitute proverbs.
An example of it is: ‘Better be the head of a dog than the tail of a lion’. For the
head of a dog part, we have a metaphorical understanding of leaders as being the head
of a body, in terms of the basic metaphor Control Is Up, so by virtue of this metaphoric
understanding, we can map part of an animal that is physically up (the head) onto that of
a person, which is physically, and in turn metaphorically up, and still preserve the
generic-level structure. Here, the Great Chain metaphor interacts with one basic
metaphor: Control Is Up, and with a metonymy of the source-in-target kind, the Specific
For Generic one, which involves domain expansion: head stands in a subdomain
relation with person. In this case it stands for the person that has a leading role.
2.4 Generic-level structure and the Extended Invariance Principle.
The source domain of the People Are Animals metaphor is developed through a source-
in-target metonymy. This metonymy structures a mental space to make the mapping
from a specific to any generic situation that will be the source domain – or part of it – of
the metaphor. We have two input spaces, one created by the metonymy and the other
derived from the specific situation to which the metonymy applies.
In my view, the source-in-target metonymy in proverbs dealing with many-
correspondence metaphors does not provide all the elements of conceptual structure
needed to create a generic space which permits the metaphoric mapping, but it just
highlights, as I have just said, what is relevant to understand such metaphoric mapping.
The generic space is built upon a different basis from the input space created by that
metonymy, which develops just one of the correspondences. Thus, the generic structure
which shares such properties to make the relation between domains possible is taken
48
49
form the source and from the target domains of the metaphor as a whole, from all the
correspondences.
Related to all this, the Extended Invariance Principle formulated by Ruiz de
Mendoza (1998a: 263) gives systematicity to the cognitive processes which underlie
such phenomena. It says: “Metaphorical mappings preserve the generic-level structure
of the source domain in a way consistent with the inherent structure of the target
domain.” Ruiz de Mendoza (1998a: 265) redefines it in order for that principle to make
the convergence of more than one cognitive domain possible without violating the
generic-level structures of any of them: “All contextual effects motivated by a
metaphoric mapping will preserve the generic-level structure of the source domain and
of any other input space involved, in a way consistent with the inherent structure of the
target domain.” Thus, we have the convergence of the Generic Is Specific metaphor and
the People Are Animals one, together with any ICM, either abstract or not, which
appears in metonymies.
49
50
2.5 The universality and specificity of proverbs: implications.
What is universal about proverbs is the cognitive mechanisms speakers use in order to
produce, understand and transmit them, which we have already explained from the
Great Chain Metaphor Theory (GCMT) perspective. Now, if we let the cultural
perspective interfere, we may state that The Great Chain metaphor is a cultural model
which defines attributes and behaviour applying to humans, animals, plants, complex
objects, and natural physical things, as we have seen before.
Lakoff & Turner (1989: 193-194) present different metaphorical schemas that show
how we conceive animals, and how we apply this folk knowledge to the construction of
metaphorical schemas. Thus, we can understand people in terms of lower-order forms of
being or even understand these lower-order forms of being in terms of human attributes
and behaviour. According to them, the domain of animal life is one of the most
elaborate ones, which we use to understand the human domain. This is important for
proverb analysis and interpretation. They present some common propositions that take
place in schemas for animals:
(1)
- Pigs are dirty, messy and rude.
- Lions are courageous and noble.
- Foxes are clever.
- Dogs are loyal, dependable and dependent.
- Cats are frikle and independent.
- Wolves are cruel and murderous.
- Gorillas are aggressive and violent.
These are metaphorical propositions within schemas.[...]Our folk understanding of what
these animals are like is metaphorical[...] It is so natural for us to understand non-human
attributes in terms of our own human character traits that we often have difficulty
realising that such characterisations of animals are metaphorical Lakoff & Turner
(1989: 194).
According to this quotation, Lakoff & Turner (1989) seem to assume that this folk
knowledge that is behind proverbs is natural, and so universal. In my opinion, the fact
that it is so overspread and so deeply rooted in a wide variety of cultures does not mean
that it is natural. It is a convention, no matter how spread it is, and therefore, it is
subject to possible changes. Then, these metaphorical propositions are not universal, but
common to many societies. This is what makes many proverbs coincide, if not in the
perspective or in the form, at least in the message along different cultures in the world.
Hatch and Brown (1995) have convincingly argued that although we think proverbs are
bound to culture, there are many with equivalents across cultures. But even if we do not
have the same proverbs, we can interpret them if we encounter them for the first time,
because of their universal underlying mental mechanisms.
We may say, in relation to this, that we have two types of proverbs (Orbaneja y
Majada 1998): those with a common, universal morality, guide for the practice of
virtue, similar in all countries, if not in the form, at least in the message; and those
which are particular, born from a historical fact, a local custom or a specific event. They
have their own identity signs which characterise the place or time of origin.
50
51
From my view, proverbs are always a result of social, cultural, political values, and
the only difference between ones and others is their range of extension along countries
and societies. This previous distinction is, in any case, useful for the sake of this work,
since I intend to extract some similarities and differences form a corpus of English and
Spanish proverbs, in order to arrive to some conclusions that show how proverbs reflect
social values. Lakoff & Turner’s (1989: 213) is quite catastrophic in this respect:
For whatever reason, perhaps because in our early cognitive development we inevitably
form the model of the basic Great Chain as we interact with the world, it seems that the
Great Chain is widespread and has a strong natural appeal. This is frightening. It
implies that those social, political, and ecological evils induced by the Great Chain will
not disappear quickly or easily or of their own accord.
Proverbs are understood in relation to a background of assumptions and values, so
they are primarily a social phenomenon. Context is essential for their correct
interpretation, because they provide a message in an indirect way. They are learned
through social interaction and for social purposes, and they promote social values. I
doubt whether proverbs reflect social values or transmit them, but in any case we can
learn many things about a specific culture just by looking at them.
3. Comparison of proverbs in English and Spanish
3.1 Introduction
Proverbs, like species, evolve. They are vast in imagery, they are familiar, and easy to
learn. Apart from their cultural range, their lifetime varies enormously. In this piece of
work I have selected proverbs related to dogs just for the purpose of reducing the scope
of proverbs to analyse.
In the cultural model of the Great Chain, we have hierarchies that are not merely
descriptive, but also instructive. They transmit to us how the world should be ‘ideally’
organised. The basic Great Chain concerns the relation of human beings to lower forms
of existence. In this scale, animals are prototypically characterised by their instinctual
behaviour, though according to our commonplace knowledge, higher animals like dogs
have also interior states as desires, emotions and limited cognitive ability, like memory.
According to the Great Chain metaphor, all these attributes will lead to a specific
behaviour. If we join the Generic Is Specific metaphor, we will be able to understand
human traits in terms of animal ones. This allows for the creation of metaphorical
schemas about different animals, such as the one shown above. Dogs, according to this,
are portrayed as dependable, dependent and loyal. With this information in mind, I
focus on those proverbs.
We can have different types of proverbs, with respect to the metaphors used in
them. All of them make use of the Generic Is Specific metaphor, but we may find
proverbs with animals as protagonists – so there is also the People Are Animals
metaphor – and others where animals are just participants or even they are absent from
the proverb. An example of dogs being participants is in the Spanish proverb: ‘Quien
da pan a perro ajeno, pierde pan y pierde perro’, which maps any particular person –
expressed through the indefinite pronoun quien – to whoever can be in that situation. In
51
52
general we note that in Spanish we find more proverbs of that type than in English,
while in English it is more frequent the representation of people through animals. In
Spanish we also have more religious metaphors, such as ‘A quien Dios pare bien, la
perra le pare lechones’, and a more frequent use of the elements of nature, that is, there
seems to be a more frequent use of the Extended Great Chain.
3.2. Corpus of study
My corpus has been extracted from a number of compilations of proverbs, both in
English and in Spanish: Carbonell (1996), Flavell (1997), Junceda (1998), and
Canalleda (2001). Out of all these, I have decided to delimit my scope of research in
order to provide this piece of research with more accuracy and more detailed
explanatory and descriptive power. Thus, I have selected those proverbs where dogs are
the protagonists – those where we find the People Are Animals metaphor – at least in
one of the two languages I am dealing with. The corpus analysed is provided in Figure 1
below:
SPANISH
ENGLISH
1.-[A cada pajarillo le llega su veranillo]
1.-Every dog has his day
[A cada santo le llega su día de fiesta]
2.-A los galgos del rey no se les escapa la 2.-...
liebre
3.-A otro perro con ese hueso, que yo roído 3.-...
lo tengo
4.-A perro flaco todo son pulgas
4.-[The weaker has the worst]
[An unhappy man’s cart is eith to tumble]
5.-Al perro que duerme no le despiertes 5.-Let
sleeping
dogs lie
[When sorrow is asleep, wake it not]
6.-A perro viejo no hay tus tus
6.-...
7.-Borracha está la ladra: tres días ha que 7.-...
no perra
8.-Can con rabia con su dueño traba/a su 8.-...
amo muerde
9.-Can que mucho lame saca sangre
9.-...
10.-De casta le viene al galgo ser rabilargo 10.-…
11.-El mejor amigo, un perro 11.-A
dog is a man’s best friend
52
53
12.-El perro del hortelano ni come las 12.-...
berzas ni las deja comer
13.-El perro en el barbecho ladra sin 13.-…
provecho
14.-El perro ladra, pero la caravana pasa
14.-The dogs bark but the caravan goes on
15.-El perro viejo no ladra en vano
15.-An old dog barks not in vain
-El perro viejo cuando ladra da consejo -If the old dog barks, he gives counsel
16.-[En todas partes se cuecen habas]
16.-In every country dogs bite
17.-Ládreme el perro, y no me muerda
17.-…
18.-Los perros, hermanos; y los ganaderos, 18.-Dog does not eat dog
extraños
19.-Los perros de Zurita, no teniendo a 19.-The dog that is idle barks at his fleas
quién morder, uno a otro se mordían
[El diablo, cuando no tiene nada que
hacer, mata monas]
20.-[Loro viejo no aprende a hablar]
20.-You cannot teach an old dog new tricks
21.-A living dog is better than a dead lion
21.-Más vale perro vivo que león muerto
22.-[Más vale ser cabeza de ratón que cola 22.-Better be the head of a dog than the tail of
de león]
a lion
23.-Menea la cola el can, no por ti, sino 23.-Dogs wag their tails not so much in love to
por el pan
you as to your bread
24.-Muerto el perro se acabó la rabia
24.-Dead dogs bite not
-Perro muerto no muerde ni ladra
[Dead men don’t bite]
25.-Nunca perro en casa de herrero
25.-…
26.-Perro alcucero nunca buen consejero
26.-…
27.-Perro ladrador poco mordedor
27.-Barking dogs seldom bite
[El gato maullador, nunca buen cazador]
28.-Perro que muchas liebres levanta, 28.-…
pocas mata
Perrillo de muchas bodas no come en
ninguna por comer en todas
Galgo que a dos liebres corre a ninguna
53
54
coge
[Quien mucho abarca poco alcanza]
[No se puede estar en la misa y en la
procesión]
Figure 1 Corpus of analysis
Notation: […]: There is no a dog proverb but there is a correspondent one
…: There is no correspondent proverb in the language
3.3 General comparative analysis
• We have more proverbs with dogs in Spanish than in English. In Spanish, the word
dog has three equivalents: perro, which is the most general one; can, which is given
a negative connotation of hunger or anger (in proverbs 8, 9, 23) and so it represents
negative aspects of people; and galgo, which is more tied to hunting activities, so it is
related to the nobility, who was the social class who could afford to practice that kind
of activity in the days when those proverbs must have appeared (2, 10, 28). All this
contradicts Lakoff’s metaphorical schema about dogs (1989), which are for him
naturally seen as loyal, dependable and dependent, and argues instead for the
specificity of culture in this respect. This demonstrates that it is not the view we have
of animals or of the elements of the Great Chain what is universal, but the
metaphorical structure of proverbs, our mental schemas with which we build up our
representation of reality, though then we categorise it in different ways.
• In Spanish proverbs we also find more of them related to hunger, food, the harvest or
hunting (2, 3, 12, 13, 16, 18, 23, 27, 28) than in English (18, 23), what may be
explained by a the fact that when those proverbs were created the situation in Spain
was worse, there was a crisis and it is known that people usually talk about those
things they lack, as the Spanish proverb ‘Dime de qué presumes y te diré de qué
careces’ illustrates.
• In Spanish proverbs we also note the presence of religious metaphors (1, 19), in the
sense that they deal with religious or superstitious affairs, whereas in English we find
that their equivalents deal with dogs. As we see, it is more frequent in English the
representation of people with animals (higher use of the Basic Great Chain), while in
Spanish the presence of God or of abstract things is more marked (higher use of the
Extended Great Chain). In Spanish, nevertheless, we find more proverbs which use
alternative animals (1, 20, 22, 27) instead of dogs, though the proverbial expression
keeps still the same form as for the rest of it.
• Something that is also interesting is the mentioning of drunkenness in a Spanish
proverb (7). Although in the corpus presented here there are not more instances about
it, Spanish proverbs do frequently mention wine, drunkenness, alcohol in general,
which is also a particular sign of our culture.
• In this corpus we can also note the personification of abstract elements such as
feelings (5) and the appearance of man as representative of human kind (4, 24), in
English, which in Spanish have equivalent versions with the People Are Animals
metaphor.
54
55
All the differences presented by now show different perspectives used in these
metaphorical constructions, different cultural scripts, but they share the underlying deep
meaning in most cases and all of them are invariably composed through the same
mental mechanisms: metaphor and metonymy.
For instance, in ‘Better be the head of a dog than the tail of a lion’ compared to
‘Más vale ser cabeza de ratón que cola de león’, the same cultural script and the same
metaphors and metonymies are present, what only varies from one to the other is the
animal (ratón for dog, which represent both ‘someone not too important’). Even they
share the same form and the social values promoted coincide.
We may also have different cultural scripts in proverbs in one or other language, so
the proverb would be culturally specific, such as 2, which appeared as an irony against
the hunting of the king of the epoch (Felipe II), who arranged the hunting so that his
dogs always found the here. There is no equivalent version in English then.
3.4 Pragmatic and sociolinguistic analysis
In this section I carry out an analysis of those original Spanish proverbs whose English
counterparts are based on a different pragmatic scenario, or which do not have a
correspondent dog proverb in English, as well as of those original English proverbs for
which there is not any Spanish correspondent dog proverb. First of all, something that
must me noted is that in the cases in which there is an original English dog proverb
which does not have a Spanish dog proverb counterpart, we find other alternative
proverbs in Spanish based on a different metaphor, though transmitting the same
message with a similar ICM. This is the case of proverbs in 1, 16, 20, and 22. in 1, 20,
and 22 there is just a change in the animal that acts as protagonist in the metaphor.
Thus, we still keep the People Are Animals metaphor. In 16, on the other hand, the
Spanish counterpart does not make use of such metaphor, but of a high-level metonymy,
where the impersonal and concrete action of cooking beans is used to represent a more
abstract situation: the fact that everybody has to face difficulties in life, in all parts of
the world. This proverb is still based on the Great Chain Metaphor, within which we
encounter the specific for generic metonymy (see Point 2.2).
Secondly, it is also interesting to note the fact that in the case of existing original
Spanish proverbs related to dogs for which there is not a correspondent one in English,
it is more frequent the complete lack of an English proverb than the availability of a
proverb related to other pragmatic scenarios. This happens in 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13,
17, 25, 26, and 28. This shows a higher tendency in Spanish to use proverbs to represent
how speakers deal with certain life experiences. Going further, if we examine the
message these proverbs transmit, we can see that there are certain coincidences with
respect to their pragmatic and social meanings. Proverbs 2, 3, 6, and 10 are all of them
built around a common idea: the fact that age makes people get experience and lose
innocence. In this case, then, the People Are Animals metaphor works to identify a
dog’s age with a person’s age and to relate it to experience. With respect to proverb 7, it
has been commented above, and it shows one feature of Spanish culture: the socially
accepted custom of drinking alcohol and getting drunk. Drinking alcohol may be
something common in many cultures, but the difference between the English and the
Spanish ones is that in the English culture it is not so openly and so socially accepted as
55
56
something funny and positive. With respect to the rest of proverbs, each of them
contains a different message related to folk knowledge, which is not specifically related
to Spanish culture, but to people’s behaviour and way of being.
The fact that English lacks a proverb to represent certain attitudes and situations
does not imply that such attitudes do not exist in the English culture. Rather, it simply
indicates that in Spanish people are more concerned with them. According to Lakoff
(1987), language is a conceptual phenomenon. This means that it depends on
experience. That is, we talk about what we live, about our life experiences, and about
what calls our attention. Thus, for instance, a proverb 9, which can literally be translated
as ‘A dog which licks you too much makes you bleed’, means that it is not good to
flatter anyone in excess, that being too affectionate can result in the opposite effect, and
offend the other person.
With respect to those English proverbs for which there is not Spanish counterpart,
in the case of the corpus analysed we do not have the case. We only have the possibility
of lacking a correspondent dog proverb, but we have another proverb with an alternative
pragmatic scenario, as said above.
After this analysis, we can obtain the idea that in the Spanish language there is a
higher tendency to represent popular believes through proverbs. This does not mean that
English does not have a wide range of proverbs. In fact, this conclusion is valid for this
piece of research, but it may be biased by the corpus of study used. Thus, a wider study
would be necessary in order to prove whether this tendency is applicable to proverbs in
general, instead of just to proverbs where dog are the basic elements. Further studies in
this line are then welcome.
3.5 Cognitive analysis of some proverbs
Despite the cultural differences we may have seen before, all proverbs show a common
metaphorical schema, which is shown in Figure 2. This demonstrates that what varies
across cultures are scripts, the view of reality, categories, but not the way we categorise,
or the way we think or structure it in our minds.
METAPHOR
X--------------------------------------X’
Y--------------------------------------Y’
(S)
METONYMY-----------------Z’
(T)Z
Figure 2 General schema for proverbs: metonymic expansion of one of the
correspondences of the source domain of a metaphor
First, we present in Figure 3 a proverb which exists just in Spanish – number 2 in
our corpus – since it was born from a particular cultural anecdote:
56
57
METAPHOR
SOURCE
TARGET
King’s dogs-------------------------------People who serves the privileged
King----------------------------------------People with privileges
Hunting------------------------------------Serving, working for
Hare
(S)
METONYMY---------------
Rewards
obtained after serving the privileged
Hare obtained (T)
after hunting
Figure 3 Metaphorical schema of ‘A los galgos del rey no se les escapa la liebre’
The next proverb to be analysed (1) does have an equivalent one in Spanish but it
shows different cultural scripts: ‘Every dog has his day’. As we can see in the corpus,
in Spanish its equivalents show a different perspective: a religious metaphor is one of
them (‘A cada santo le llega su día de fiesta’), and the other one shows the same cultural
scripts, but there is just a different animal (‘A cada pajarillo le llega su veranillo’). The
form is the same in all of them. This simply shows that a good, dependable person who
will always be rewarded is represented by different figures: a dog, a little bird or a Saint,
which acquire the same metaphorical values. Therefore, in all of them the underlying
mental schemas are the same, as Figures 4, 5 and 6 illustrate:
METAPHOR
SOURCE
TARGET
dog----------------------------------------loyal, dependent and dependable person
day (S)
METONYMY--------------moment of reward because of his/her goodness
reward (T)
Figure 4 Metaphorical schema of ‘Every dog has his day’
METAPHOR
SOURCE
TARGET
santo------------------------------------------loyal, dependent and dependable person
dia de fiesta(S)
METOYNYMY---------moment of reward for his/her goodness
dia de reconocimiento
a
su
bondad(T)
Figure 5 Metaphorical schema of ‘A cada santo le llega su día de fiesta’
In ‘A cada pajarillo le llega su veranillo’, pajarillo is equivalent to dog, it is seen
metaphorically in the same way as a noble, good animal. This is emphasised by the
endearing suffix -illo.
57
58
METAPHOR
SOURCE
TARGET
Pajarillo------------------------------------loyal, dependent and dependable person
Veranillo(S)
METONYMY-------- moment of reward for his/her goodness
Días de recompensa
por su trabajo en invierno(S)
Figure 6 Metaphorical schema of ‘A cada pajarillo le llega su veranillo’
4. CONCLUSION
In this article I have aimed at showing some insights into the role of generic cognitive
mechanisms in language structure and use. Through this brief cross-linguistic
examination of metaphorical and metonymic phenomena in proverbs has served to
demonstrate that they lie on cognitive and pragmatic universal principles. Besides, by
looking at the social meaning they convey, I have found evidence for the systematic
process of conventionalisation that takes place in proverbs throughout different
languages. Such process involves a number of cognitive mechanisms that have been
analysed. This kind of study has also served to understand how grammatical resources
are developed in them.
I defend the view that, though proverbial expressions may vary across cultures and
may express different cultural scripts, they show that the cognitive mechanisms
speakers use in order to understand and to produce them are the same. Nonetheless, a
further study on languages other than English and Spanish would provide evidence for
their universal systematicity. Finally, it is important to note the interest and usefulness
of proverbs. They are highly economic resources to transmit ideas, and thus, they are
pragmatically efficient. Even more, they are informative for anyone who wants to have
access to the traditions and to the popular believes of a community of speakers. For this,
they are also extremely valuable for sociolinguistic purposes.
Ana Ibáñez Moreno and Ana Ortigosa Pastor
Universidad de La Rioja
Departamento de filologías modernas
C/San José de Calasanz s/n
26004, Logrono (La Rioja)
Spain
ana.ibanezm@dfm.unirioja.es
58
59
References
Canalleda, Jose Maria. 2001. Refranero español: refranes, clasificación, significación y uso.
Madrid: Castalia.
Carbonell Basset, D. 1996. A Dictionary of Proverbs, Sayings, Saws, Adages: English and
Spanish. Barcelona : Ediciones del Serbal.
Flavell, Linda. 1997. Dictionary of proverbs and their origins . London: Kyle Cathie.
Goossens, Louis. 1990. “Metaphtonymy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in
expressions for linguistic action”, Cognitive Linguistics 1-3, 323-340.
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” In: P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and
Semantics. Vol. 3. Speech Acts. Nueva York: Academic Press, 41-58.
Hatch, Evelyn and Brown, Cheryl. 1995. Vocabulary, Semantics and Language Education.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Junceda, Luis. 1998. Diccionario de refranes, dichos y proverbios. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, D. L.
Kövecses, Zoltán and Radden, Günter. 1999. “Towards a theory of metonymy”. In: K. Panther
and G. Radden (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, 17-60.
Lakoff, Georg. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Lakoff, Georg and Turner, Mark. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Lakoff, Georg and Turner, Mark. 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic
Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Orbaneja Y Majada, E. 1998. El saber del pueblo o ramillete. Madrid: Cie Inversiones
Editoriales Dossat 2000, S. L.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Thornburg, Linda L. (eds.) 2003. Metonymy and pragmatic
inferencing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pérez Hernáez, L. & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. 2001. “Metonymy and the grammar –
motivation, constraints and interaction.” Language and Communication 21/4, 321-358.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. 1998. “On the nature of blending as a cognitive
phenomenon.” Journal of Pragmatics 30/3, 259-274.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. 1999a. “From semantic undetermination via metaphor to
conceptual interaction.” Essen: LAUD 492.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. 1999b. Introducción a la teoría cognitiva de la
metonimia. Granada: Método Ediciones.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. 2001. “Metonymy and the grammar.” Language and
Communication 21/4, 321-357.
59
Document Outline
