El Procesamiento de la Metáfora Conceptual mediante Quinian Bootstrapping
Conteúdo do artigo principal
Resumo
Desde un enfoque ontogenético, esta es una propuesta reelaborada de la noción de Quinian bootstrapping (QB) para su aplicación a la teoría de la metáfora conceptual (TMC), específicamente al vínculo cognitivo entre el pensamiento esquemático del dominio-fuente y su correspondiente dominio-destino. Frente al escaso desarrollo teórico específico de la TMC al respecto de la ontogenia y la intersubjetividad para el procesamiento metafórico, este trabajo aplica QB a la TMC. Inicialmente, los/as cuidadores y cuidadoras usarían etiquetas (ítems léxicos) portadoras de significado, pero vacías de contenido para los/las infantes. Moduladas por prosodia y gestualidad en experiencias recurrentes, tales etiquetas funcionarían como un señalamiento público y explícito de relevancia en la comunidad adulta. Desde los dos años de edad, el/la infante lograría cargar las etiquetas del significado que su entorno utiliza, al conectar un dominio de la experiencia anclado al cuerpo y la percepción a otro más abstracto referido por la comunidad de habla.
Detalhes do artigo
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Commons Attribution License, CCAL). Com esta licença, os autores conservam o direito de propriedade sobre artigos mas permitem que qualquer pessoa façam download e distribuam os artigos publicados na RACC sem necessidade da permissão do autor ou editor. Uma última condição é que sempre, e em todos os casos, o autor e a fonte original de publicação (p.e., RACC) sejam citados. Esta licença foi desenvolvido para facilitar o acesso aberto, gratuito e livre a trabalhos originais do arte e ciência.
Como Citar
Referências
Carey, S. (2004). Bootstrapping & the origin of concepts. Daedalus, 133(1), 59-68.
Carey, S. (2009). The Origin of Concepts. Nueva York: OUP.
Carey, S. (2011a). Précis of The Origin of Concepts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(3), 113-124. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X10000919
Carey, S. (2011b). Concept Innateness, Concept Continuity, and Bootstrapping: A Response to Commentaries on The Origin of Concepts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(3), 152-167.
Carey, S. (15 de junio de 2015). Implicit Mind: Core Cognition: Implicit Knowledge? Implicit Mind Workshop at the Institute for Futures Studies in Stockholm [Archivo de video]. Recuperado de: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=15&v=TuG0AcK4za0
Clausner, T., & Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10(1), 1-31. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1999.001
Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2006). Social Learning and Social Cognition: The Case for Pedagogy. En Y. Munakata, & M. H. Johnson (Eds.), Processes of Change in Brain and Cognitive Development. Attention and Performance, XXI. (pp. 249-274). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dennett, D. (1993). Learning & Labeling (comentario sobre A. Clark y A. Karmiloff-Smith, "The Cognizer's Innards"), Mind and Language, 8(4), 540-547.
Feldman, J., & Narayanan, S. (2004). Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language. Brain and Language, 89(1), 385-392. doi: 10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00355-9
Forceville, C., & Urios-Aparisi, E. (2009). Multimodal Metaphor. Berlín: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gärdenfors, P., & Löhndorf, S. (2013). What is a domain? Dimensional structures versus meronomic relations. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(3), 437-456. doi: 10.1515/cog-2013-0017.
Grady, J. (1997). Foundations of meaning: primary metaphors and primary scenes (Tesis doctoral inédita). University of California, Berkeley.
Graf, E. (2006). The Ontogenetic Development of Literal and Metaphorical Space in Language. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Hampe, B. (2005). From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Heintz, C. (2011). Presuming placeholders are relevant enables conceptual change. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(3), 131-132. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X10002347
Imai, M., & Kita, S. (2014). The sound symbolism bootstrapping hypothesis for language acquisition and language evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal. Society B, 369(1651), 1-13. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0298
Johnson, C. (1999). Metaphor vs. conflation in the acquisition of polysemy: the case of SEE. En M. K. Hiraga, C. Sinha, & S. Wilcox (Eds.), Cultural, Typological and Psychological Perspectives in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 155-169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kant, I. (1968). Critique of pure reason. Nueva York: St. Martin’s Press.
Karmiloff, K., & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2002). Pathways to Language. From Fetus to Adolescent. Londres: Harvard University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2017). Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(2), 321-347. doi: 10.1515/cog-2016-0052.
Lakoff, G. (1990). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. En A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2a Ed.) (pp. 202-251). Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (2008). The Neural Theory of Metaphor. En R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp. 17-38). Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (2014). Mapping the brain's metaphor circuitry: Metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(958), 1-14. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00958.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. Nueva York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Martínez, I. C. (2014). La base corporeizada del significado musical. En S. Español (Comp.), Psicología de la música y del desarrollo. Una exploración interdisciplinaria sobre la musicalidad humana (pp. 71-110). Buenos Aires: Paidós.
Perner, J. (1991). Learning, development, and conceptual change. Understanding the representational mind. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Poulin-Dubois, D. (2011). How to build a baby: A new toolkit? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(3), 144-145. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X11000070
Quine, W. V. O. (2013). Word and Object. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F., & Pérez, L. (2011). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor Myths, Developments and Challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26(3), 161-185. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2011.583189
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of Categorization. En E. Rosch, & B. Lloyd (Eds), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27-48). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stern, D. (2010). Forms of vitality. Exploring dynamic experience in psychology, arts, psychotherapy, and development. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
Trehub, S. (2003) Musical Predispositions in Infancy: An Update. En I. Peretz, & R. Zatorre (Eds.), The Cognitive Neuroscience of Music (pp. 3-20). Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
Weiskopf, D. (2011). Language and mechanisms of concept learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(3), 150-151. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X10002396
Zbikowski, L. (2002). Conceptualizing Music: Cognitive Structure, Theory, and Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
Zlatev, J. (2005). What’s in a schema? Bodily mimesis and the grounding of language. En B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 313–342). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Zlatev, J. (2013). The Mimesis Hierarchy of Semiotic Development: Five Stages of Intersubjectivity in Children. The Public Journal of Semiotics, 4(2), 47-73. doi: 10.37693/pjos.2013.4.8842