1887
Volume 10, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Applying conceptual metaphor theory, this study aims to discuss how metaphors emerge from the interaction between perceptual experience and cultural environment, comparing English and Chinese. The kind of metaphors under study is rooted in the image schema, particularly in its dimension in with bipolar values as and . Specifically, these are primary metaphors grounded in experiential correlations in manipulating physical objects that are hard or soft. It is argued that the similarities and differences between English and Chinese in such metaphorical mappings can be accounted for by four main meaning focuses consisting in four pairs of parametric variables: more or less effort, more or less impact, more or less strength, and more or less flexibility. These parametric variables determine metaphorical mapping pathways from and as source concepts to some abstract target concepts.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00106.yu
2023-11-17
2026-05-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Gibbs, R. W.
    (1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (2006) Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (2017) Metaphor wars: Conceptual metaphors in human life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Grady, J. E.
    (1997a) Foundation of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Ph.D. dissertation. Berkeley: University of California.
  5. (1997b) Theories are Buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267–290. 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.4.267
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.4.267 [Google Scholar]
  6. Grady, J. E., & Ascoli, G. A.
    (2017) Sources and targets in primary metaphor theory: Looking back and thinking ahead. InB. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse (pp.27–45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108182324.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182324.003 [Google Scholar]
  7. Kövecses, Z.
    (2010) Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2013) The metaphor-metonymy relationship: Correlation metaphors are based on metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(2), 75–88. 10.1080/10926488.2013.768498
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2013.768498 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2017) Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(2), 321–347. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0052
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0052 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2020) Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108859127
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108859127 [Google Scholar]
  11. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Maalej, Z., & Yu, N.
    (2011) Introduction: Embodiment via body parts. InZ. Maalej & N. Yu (Eds.), Embodiment via body parts: Studies from various languages and cultures (pp.1–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.31.03maa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.31.03maa [Google Scholar]
  14. Sharifian, F., Dirven, R., Yu, N., & Niemeier, S.
    (2008) Culture and language: Looking for the “mind” inside the body. InF. Sharifian, R. Dirven, N. Yu & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Culture, body, and language: Conceptualizations of internal body organs across cultures and languages (pp.3–23). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199109.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199109.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  15. Sullivan, K.
    (2013) Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.14 [Google Scholar]
  16. Williams, J. M.
    (1976) Synaesthetic adjectives: A possible law of semantic change. Language, 52(2), 461–478. 10.2307/412571
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412571 [Google Scholar]
  17. Winter, B., & Matlock, T.
    (2017) Primary metaphors are both cultural and embodied. InB. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse (pp.99–115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108182324.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182324.007 [Google Scholar]
  18. Yu, N.
    (1998) The contemporary theory of metaphor: A perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.1 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2003) Synesthetic metaphor: A cognitive perspective. Journal of Literary Semantics, 32(1), 19–34. 10.1515/jlse.2003.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jlse.2003.001 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2004) The eyes for sight and mind. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(4), 663–686. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(03)00053‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00053-5 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2008) Metaphor from body and culture. InR. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.247–261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.016
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.016 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2013) The body in anatomy: Looking at “head” for the mind-body link in Chinese. InR. Caballero & J. E. Díaz Vera (Eds.), Sensuous cognition: Explorations into human sentience: Imagination, (e)motion and perception (pp.53–74). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110300772.53
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110300772.53 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2015) Embodiment, culture, and language. InF. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp.227–239). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2022) The moral metaphor system: A conceptual metaphor approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780192866325.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192866325.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Yu, N., & Huang, J.
    (2019) Primary metaphors across languages: Difficulty as weight and solidity. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(2), 111–126. 10.1080/10926488.2019.1611725
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2019.1611725 [Google Scholar]
  26. Yu, N., Yu, L., & Lee, Y. C.
    (2017) Primary metaphors: Importance as size and weight in a comparative perspective. Metaphor and Symbol, 32(4), 231–249. 10.1080/10926488.2017.1384276
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2017.1384276 [Google Scholar]
  27. Zhao, Q., Ahrens, K., & Huang, C.-R.
    (2022) Linguistic synesthesia is metaphorical: A lexical-conceptual account. Cognitive Linguistics, 33(3), 553–583. 10.1515/cog‑2021‑0098
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2021-0098 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00106.yu
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00106.yu
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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