1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Cognitive Linguistic Studies
  4. Volume 5, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 5, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article focuses on an analysis of the perception of danger in a sample of conservative Evangelical Christian sermons and Thai Forest Tradition dhamma talks. Through the analysis of keywords, frames, conceptual metaphors, and patterns of agency in the use of metaphor, it seeks to explore how one Christian believer and one Buddhist practitioner conceptualize their ways of being religious. We argue that this specific set of dhamma talks has a primary focus on an individual actively progressing within the practice of meditation while interacting with elements that may be beneficial or harmful to that progress. In contrast, this particular sample of sermons has a primary focus on two groups or categories of people, fallen sinners and true Christians, and their strictly defined hierarchical relationship to God. Aspects of this relationship are often defined in terms of power, fear, and danger, with shifting intersections between active behavior and being acted upon by greater forces or powers. We conclude that a cognitive linguistic approach to analyzing perceptions of danger within a specified genre of religious discourse can be useful in producing a picture of how an individual religious believer within a particular context and moment in time views reality, their position within it, and their progression through it.

© John Benjamins
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00016.ric
2018-08-30
2024-10-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00016.ric
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Beck, U.
    (2010) A God of one’s own. Cambridge: Polity Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bible Gateway (King James Version)
    Bible Gateway (King James Version). Retrieved fromwww.biblegateway.com
  3. Cameron, L.
    (2011) Metaphor and reconciliation: The discourse dynamics of empathy in post-conflict conversations. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Charteris-Black, J.
    (2004) Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230000612
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230000612 [Google Scholar]
  5. Coleman, L.
    (1980) The language of “born-again” Christianity. InProceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkley Linguistics Society (pp.133–142). Berkeley: University of California.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Douglas, M.
    (1993) In the wilderness: The doctrine of defilement in the book of numbers. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. (1966) Purity and Danger: An analysis of the concept of pollution and taboo. New York: Routledge Classics.10.4324/9780203361832
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203361832 [Google Scholar]
  8. Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M.
    (2002) Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1982) Frame semantics. InLinguistics in the morning calm. The Linguistic Society of Korea. (pp.111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Geertz, C.
    (1993) Religion as a cultural system. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays (pp.87–125). London: Fontana Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Gentner, D. & Bowdle, B. F.
    (2001) Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3), 223–247.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Gibbs, Jr., R. W.
    (2006) Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Gibbs, Jr., R. W. & Colston, H. L.
    (2012) Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139168779
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139168779 [Google Scholar]
  14. Glucksberg, S.
    (2008) How metaphors create categories – quickly. In Gibbs, Jr. R. W. (Ed.). The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.67–83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511816802.006
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.006 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ito, T.
    (2012) Modern Thai Buddhism and Buddhad as a Bhikkhu. Singapore: National University of Singapore.10.2307/j.ctv1ntgk6
     https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1ntgk6 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kelly, L. H.
    (2016) Critical metaphor analysis of cosmetics metaphorical advertising slogans. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 3(1), 134–150.10.1075/cogls.3.1.07hai
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.3.1.07hai [Google Scholar]
  17. Kinnvall, C. and Nesbitt-Larking, P.
    (2011) The political psychology of globalization: Muslims in the West. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199747542.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199747542.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kövecses, Z.
    (2000) Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. (2006) Language, mind, and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. (2011) The biblical story retold: A cognitive linguistic perspective. In M. Brdar , S. T. Gries , & Fuchs, M. Z. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics. Convergence and expansion (pp.325–353). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.32.19kov
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.32.19kov [Google Scholar]
  21. (2015) Where metaphors come from. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
    (1999) Philosophy in the flesh. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Littlemore, J.
    (2015) Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107338814
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338814 [Google Scholar]
  26. MacArthur, J.
    (2012) The truth about grace. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. (2008) The truth war: Fighting for certainty in an age of deception. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Website: Grace to you. https://www.gty.org/resources/sermons
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Macmillan Dictionary
    Macmillan Dictionary. Retrieved frommacmillandictionary.com
  30. Pihlaja, S.
    (2014) Antagonism on YouTube: Metaphor in online discourse. London: Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Pragglejaz Group
    Pragglejaz Group (2007) MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39.10.1080/10926480709336752
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752 [Google Scholar]
  32. Richardson, P.
    (2017) An investigation of the blocking and development of empathy in discussions with Muslim and Christian believers. Metaphor and the Social World, 7 (1), 46–64.10.1075/msw.7.1.04ric
     https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.7.1.04ric [Google Scholar]
  33. (2012) A closer walk: A study of the interaction between metaphors related to movement and proximity and presuppositions about the reality of belief in Christian and Muslim testimonials. Metaphor and the Social World, 2 (2), 233–262.10.1075/msw.2.2.05ric
     https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.2.2.05ric [Google Scholar]
  34. Schank, R. C. & Abelson, R. P.
    (1977) Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Semino, E. , Deignan, A. & Littlemore, J.
    (2013) Metaphor, genre and recontexualization. Metaphor and Symbol, 28 (1), 41–59.10.1080/10926488.2013.742842
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2013.742842 [Google Scholar]
  36. Silvestre-López, A. J. & Navarro iFerrando, I.
    (2017) Metaphors in the conceptualization of meditative practices. Metaphor and the Social World, 7(1), 26–46.10.1075/msw.7.1.03sil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.7.1.03sil [Google Scholar]
  37. Steen, G.
    (2008) The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 213–241.10.1080/10926480802426753
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480802426753 [Google Scholar]
  38. Stockwell, P.
    (2002) Cognitive poetics: An introduction. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Taylor, J. R.
    (2003) Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu
    Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu (2014) Dhamma talks 6 (ebook version). California: Meta Forest Monastery. Retrieved from dhammatalks.org.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00016.ric
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): agency; Buddhist; Christian; cognitive linguistics; danger; metaphor

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error