Ciğer Sözcüğünün Türkçe Değişmeceli İfadelerde Kavramsallaştırılması

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 1, 1 - 24, 01.01.2018

Melike Baş

Öz

Bu çalışma, bir beden bölümü sözcüğü olan ‘ciğer’in
Türkçe deyimlerdeki değişmeceli kullanımını bilişsel dilbilimsel bir açıdan
incelemektedir. Veriler çeşitli deyimler sözlüklerinden toplanmış ve içinde
ciğer sözcüğü geçen deyimler, Kavramsal Metafor Kuramı (Lakoff ve Johnson, 1980;
Kövecses, 2000) çerçevesinde incelenmiştir. Bulgular,
ciğerin, her biri farklı alt modeller içeren KİŞİ, CANLI BİR VARLIK,
DEĞERLİ BİR NESNE ve KAP olarak kavramsallaştığı
bedenleşmiş bilişsel-kültürel bir model ortaya koymaktadır. Bulgular, ayrıca ‘ciğer’in,
üzüntü, acıma, sevgi, korku, duygusallık, hoşlanmama/nefret ve mutluluk
ifadelerinde sıklıkla kullanılıp DUYGULARIN MERKEZİ olarak kodlandığını
göstermektedir. Çalışma, Türkçede deneyimlerin kavramsallaşmasında metafor,
metonimi ve imge şemalarının egemen olduğunu vurgulamakta ve kültürün
bedenleşmiş bilişin ortaya çıkışında etkili bir rol oynadığı görüşünü
desteklemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ciğer, Kültürel Kavramsallaşmalar, Metafor, Metonimi

Conceptualizations of CİĞER 'Liver-Lung' in Turkish Figurative Expressions

Öz

This
study investigates the conceptualizations of the body part term ciğer (liver-lung) as it is used in
idioms figuratively from the cognitive linguistic perspective. Data are collected from several dictionaries, and the
idioms that include the word ciğer
are analyzed in terms of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Johnson,
1980; Kövecses, 2000). The findings reveal an embodied cultural model for ciğer that is conceptualized as A
METONYMY FOR THE PERSON, A LIVING BEING, AN OBJECT OF VALUE and A CONTAINER,
each of which include diverse sub-folk models. Findings also demonstrate ciğer
as A LOCUS FOR EMOTIONS expressing sadness, pity, liking/love, fear,
affectivity, disliking/hate and happiness in Turkish. The study highlights the
supremacy of metaphors, metonymies and image schemas in the conceptualization
of experiences in Turkish as well as supports the view that embodiment is
culturally motivated.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Liver-Lung, Cultural Conceptualizations, Metaphor, Metonymy

Kaynakça

• Barcelona, A. (1997). Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics. Atlantis, 19(1), 21-48.
• Barcelona, A. (2003). Introduction: The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 1-28). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Baş, M. (2017). The metaphoric conceptualization of emotion through heart idioms in Turkish. Cognitive Semiotics, 10(2), 121-139.
• Brenzinger, M., & Kraska-Szlenk, I. (Eds.). (2014). The body in language: Comparative studies of linguistic embodiment. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
• Charteris-Black, J. (2003). Speaking with forked tongue: A comparative study of metaphor and metonymy in English and Malay phraseology. Metaphor and Symbol, 18(4), 289-310.
• Gaby, A. (2008). Gut feelings: Locating intellect, emotion and life force in the Thaayorre body. In F. Sharifian, R. Dirven, N. Yu, & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Culture, body, and language: Conceptualizations of internal body organs across cultures and languages (pp. 27-44). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gibbs, R. W. (1999). Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world. In R. W. Gibbs, & G. J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 145-166). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Goddard, C. (2001). Hati: A key word in the Malay vocabulary of emotion. In J. Harkins & A. Wierzbicka (Eds.), Emotions in crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 167-195). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Goddard, C. (2008). Contrastive semantics and cultural psychology: English heart vs. Malay hati. In F. Sharifian, R. Dirven, N. Yu, & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Culture, body, and language: Conceptualizations of internal body organs across languages and cultures (pp. 75-102). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Hampe, B. (2005). Image schemas in cognitive linguistics: Introduction. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 1-12). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Holland, D., & Quinn, N. (1987). Culture and cognition. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 3-40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2008). Guts, heart and liver: The conceptualization of internal organs in Basque. In F. Sharifian, R. Dirven, N. Yu, & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Culture, body, and language: Conceptualizations of internal body organs across cultures and languages (pp. 103-130). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2012). The importance of unveiling conceptual metaphors in a minority language: The case of Basque. In A. Idström & E. Piirainen (Eds.), Endangered Metaphors (pp. 253-274). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
• Kövecses, Z. (1986). Metaphors of anger, pride, and love: A lexical approach to the structure of concepts. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Kövecses, Z. (1988). The language of love: The semantics of passion in conversational English. London/Toronto: Associated University Presses.
• Kövecses, Z. (1990). Emotion Concepts. New York: Springer.

• Kövecses, Z. (1998). Are there any emotion-specific metaphors? In A. Athanasiadou & E. Tabakowska (Eds.), Speaking of emotions: Conceptualization and expression (pp. 127-151). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Kövecses, Z. (2000). Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kövecses, Z. (2003). Language, figurative thought, and cross-cultural comparison. Metaphor and Symbol, 18(4), 311-320.
• Kövecses, Z. (2008). Universality and variation in the use of metaphor. In N. L. Johannesson, & D. C. Minugh (Eds.), Selected papers from the 2006 and 2007 Stockholm metaphor festivals (pp. 51-74). Stockholm: Department of English, Stockholm University.
• Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Kövecses, Z. (2013). The metaphor-metonymy relationship: Correlation metaphors are based on metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(2), 75-88.
• Kövecses, Z. (2015). Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
• Lakoff, G, Espenson, J., & Schwarts, A. (1991). Second draft copy: Master metaphor list. Retrieved on 20 June, 2012 from http://araw.mede.uic.edu/~alansz/metaphor/ METAPHORLIST.pdf
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. London: The University of Chicago Press.
• Maalej, Z., & Yu, N. (Eds.). (2011). Embodiment via body parts: Studies from various languages and cultures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• McPherson, L., & Prokhorov, K. (2011). The use of liver in Dogon emotional encoding. In G. C. Batic (Ed.), Emotional encoding in African languages. LINCOM studies in African languages 84 (pp. 38-55). Munich: LINCOM: Europa.
• Occhi, D. J. (2011). A cultural-linguistic look at Japanese ‘eye’ expressions. In Z. Maalej & N. Yu (Eds.), Embodiment via body parts: Studies from various languages and cultures (pp. 171-191). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Radic-Bojanic, B., & Silaški, N. (2012). Metaphoric and metonymic conceptualizations of the head - A dictionary-based contrastive analysis of English and Serbian. Facta Universitatis, 10(1), 29-39.
• Ruhi, Ş. (2006). Kültür araştırmalarında dilbilimin yeri: Kültürel anahtar sözcük bakış açısı. In A. Kocaman (Ed.), Dilbilim: Temel kavramlar, sorunlar, tartışmalar (pp. 89-100). Ankara: Dil Derneği.
• Ruhi, Ş., & Işık-Güler, H. (2007). Conceptualizing face and relational work in (im)politeness: Revelations from politeness lexemes and idioms in Turkish. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 681-711.
• Rull, C. P. (2001). The emotional control metaphors. Journal of English Studies, 3, 179-192.
• Sharifian, F. (2003). On cultural conceptualizations. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 3(3), 187-207.
• Sharifian, F. (2008). Distributed, emergent cultural cognition, conceptualization, and language. In R. M. Frank, R. Dirven, T. Ziemke, & E. Bernandez (Eds.), Body, language, and mind (Vol. 2): Sociocultural situatedness (pp. 109-136). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Sharifian, F. (2011). Cultural conceptualizations and language: Theoretical framework and applications. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Sharifian, F., Dirven, R., Yu, N., & Niemeier, S. (Eds.). (2008). Culture, body, and language: Conceptualizations of internal body organs across languages and cultures. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Siahaan, P. (2008). Did he break your heart or your liver? A contrastive study on metaphorical concepts from the source domain organ in English and in Indonesian. In F. Sharifian, R. Dirven, N. Yu, & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Culture, body, and language: Conceptualizations of internal body organs across cultures and languages (pp. 45-74). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, V.1. Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
• Yu, N. (2001). What does our face mean to us? Pragmatics and Cognition, 9, 1- 35.
• Yu, N. (2002). Body and emotion: Body parts in Chinese expression of emotion. Pragmatics and Cognition, 10(1/2), 341-367.
• Yu, N. (2008). Metaphor from body and culture. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 242-262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.