Jodi Sandford

Do different methodologies or experimental protocols used to investigate one semantic frame reveal the same conceptualization processes? Or better, can results of empirical linguistic analyses be compared to understand the conceptual grounding of a specific linguistic frame in a given language? This chapter proposes a re-analysis of two different experimental protocols used to verify the linguistic construal of seeing/color in English. A total of eight different implicit association tests were elaborated to understand the entrenchment of the color categories: black, white, yellow, blue, red, green, brown and grey; dark and light. Here I juxtapose the results of a previous analysis I had conducted using a different methodology. The previous investigation used a polar association of positive/negative assessment of metonymic and metaphoric linguistic expressions, using the same basic color categories, with reaction time latencies as a marker of the degree of facility of processing. Resulting from the comparison of these two different approaches the aim is to understand: (1) the complementary aspects, such as conscious processing and implicit attitudes; (2) the degree of interdependence of analyses levels in linguistic understanding of a given semantic frame; and (3) the cultural linguistic construal a group of informants employ to draw meaning from the linguistic terms in given settings. I argue that similar underlying image schemas such as space: verticality (up-down) and distance (near-far); scale: quantity (more-less); container: in-out; force: strong-weak; identity: matching interact with metaphoric/metonymic conceptualization for light, seeing, and color, e.g. seeing is light, knowing is seeing, seeing is color; and for good: good is light, good is seeing, good is color, and good is up, which emerge from these experimental results.