Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
How our biology predisposes us to an "AFFECTION IS WARMTH" "metaphor", and how our environment changes its anchor
Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Linguistics, General Linguistics.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9592-5780
2015 (English)In: 48th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europea: Book of Abstracts / [ed] Alwin Kloekhorst, Martin Kohlberger, 2015, 83-84 p.Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

"AFFECTION IS WARMTH" is one of the most widely quoted "universal" conceptual metaphors. Cognitive linguists suggest these to be conceptual, based on frequently used English expressions as “warm words, feelings”. In this talk, we will reflect on their cross-disciplinary collaboration, using both the findings of a large-scale cross-linguistic study of the meanings and uses of the temperature terms in the world’s languages and the insights from (social) psychology. Our first question –inspired by Geeraerts and Grondelaers (1995) –was to explore whether these reflect universal patterns or whether they are based on specific cultural traditions. Their presence across languages indeed varies considerably: while some languages demonstrate elaborated systems of such uses, quite a few lack them altogether, and yet others vary as to which temperature term has predominantly positive associations in its extended uses (e.g. ‘cold’rather than ‘warm’). This disconfirms the idea that this conceptual metaphor is universal, and further confirms suspicions from social psychology, which has falsified another basic assumption from conceptual metaphor theory –unidirectionality (IJzerman & Semin 2010). In the remainder, we first explore these patterns, and then provide first explorations for why they are likely to differ across languages. Perhaps surprisingly, the edited volume by Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2015) clearly reveals a significant variance in using temperature metaphors. Australian languages, Hup (Nadahup), Mapudungun (Araucanian), and Ojibwe (Algonquian) basically lack any extended use of temperature terms, while the 84SLE 2015 Book of AbstractsOceanic languages in Vanuatu and Nganasan (Uralic) have very few. This is in contrast both to some European and other Asian languages, but also to the African languages Ewe, Gbaya, Gurenɛ, Likpe, Sɛlɛɛ, Abui and Kamang (Timor-Alor-Pantar), and Yucatec Maya. These latter reveal a rich inventory of extended uses pertaining to their temperature terms, ranging from the more common ones, to the idiosyncratic ones. The actual cross-linguistic variation is both striking, thought-provoking, and calling for more research. Insights from (social) psychology may provide us with further answers for why such cross-cultural variation exists among languages. The most important reason is likely that temperature metaphors reflect how people deal with the metabolic demands of the environment. Thermoregulation is one of the most metabolically expensive activities across the animal kingdom. Other animals (and thus also humans) help regulate the temperature environment when this gets too cold, making a comfortable warm touch seem to answer basic biological necessities in mammalian sociality (Harlow & Suomi 1970; IJzerman et al. 2015). The second part of this talk will discuss the biological mechanisms behind social thermoregulation, and point to how others keeping us warm can help us answer to basic metabolic needs (cf. Beckes & Coan 2011; Beckes et al. 2014). From that, humans have developed so-called "cultural complements" to deal with the demands of the environment, and we will speculate that different linguistic metaphors are reflective of different metabolic needs across cultures, which are implemented according to different cultural practices (e.g., differences in touch) and rely on different needsdepending on the environment (e.g., different climates). Together, we discuss how language can facilitate culturally coordinated metabolism regulation, and thus point to the role of different attention-driving functions of linguistic –not conceptual –metaphors in cultural coordination.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2015. 83-84 p.
Keyword [en]
temperature, metaphor, cross-linguistic comparison, socail psychology
National Category
General Language Studies and Linguistics
Research subject
Linguistics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-128117OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-128117DiVA: diva2:913090
Conference
48th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europea, Leiden, The Netherlands, September 2-5, 2015
Available from: 2016-03-19 Created: 2016-03-19 Last updated: 2016-12-05Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Koptjevskaja Tamm, Maria
By organisation
General Linguistics
General Language Studies and Linguistics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Total: 50 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf