1887
Volume 11, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) departed from tradition in metaphor studies by treating this phenomenon as an ordinary one used in everyday reasoning. From its inception, this theory made emphasis on the role of experiential correlation in accounting for metaphorical thought to the detriment of its long-standing treatment in terms of similarity. This experientialist thesis was later strengthened by making it part of a broader theoretical framework that treated correlation metaphor as an embodied phenomenon where an essential part of its role in reasoning was due to its ability to give rise to conceptual conflation. Against the background provided by this theoretical context, this article reexamines the role of correlation, conflation, and embodiment in terms of two distinctions: low and high-level similarity, on the one hand, and structural and non-structural similarity, on the other hand. The analytical categories that support these distinctions are used to provide an improved understanding of the nature of metaphorical thought, including correlation metaphor, structural metaphor, several forms of analogy, synesthetic metaphor, and metaphorical amalgams.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00110.rui
2024-06-06
2024-06-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barcelona, A.
    (2018) General description of the metonymy database in the Córdoba project, with particular attention to the issues of hierarchy, prototypicality, and taxonomic domains. InO. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp.27–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.60.01bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.60.01bar [Google Scholar]
  2. Bergen, B. K.
    (2012) Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bhatt, R.
    (1999) Ability modals and their actuality entailments. InK. N. Shahin, S. Blake & E.-S. Kim (Eds.), The proceedings of the 17th West Coast Conference on formal linguistics (pp.74–87). CA: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bond, B., & Stevens, S. S.
    (1969) Cross-modality matching of brightness to loudness by 5-year-olds. Perception & Psychophysics, 6(6A), 337–339. 10.3758/BF03212787
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212787 [Google Scholar]
  5. Casasanto, D., & Gijssels, T.
    (2015) What makes a metaphor an embodied metaphor?. Linguistics Vanguard, 1(1), 327–337. 10.1515/lingvan‑2014‑1015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2014-1015 [Google Scholar]
  6. Dodge, E., & Lakoff, G.
    (2005) Image schemas: From linguistic analysis to neural grounding. InB. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.57–92). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197532.1.57
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.1.57 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dupriez, B.
    (1991) A dictionary of literary devices: Gradus, A-Z. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 10.3138/9781442670303
    https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442670303 [Google Scholar]
  8. Gibbs, Jr. R. W.
    (2006) Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind and Language, 21(3), 434–458. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2006.00285.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00285.x [Google Scholar]
  9. (2014) Embodied metaphor. InJ. Littlemore & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to Cognitive Linguistics (pp.167–184). London: Blooomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Grady, J. E.
    (1997) 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]
  11. (1999) A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. InR. W. Gibbs, Jr. & G. J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.79–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.175.06gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.175.06gra [Google Scholar]
  12. 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]
  13. Karttunen, L.
    (1971) Implicative verbs. Language, 47(2), 340–358. 10.2307/412084
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412084 [Google Scholar]
  14. Lakoff, G.
    (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2008) The neural theory of metaphor. InR. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.17–38). New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.003 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2014) Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: Metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 81, Article 958. 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00958
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00958 [Google Scholar]
  17. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Leech, G. N.
    (1969) A linguistic guide to English poetry. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
    (1999) The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.333–357). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.19pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.19pan [Google Scholar]
  22. Peña-Cervel, M. S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2022) Figuring out figuration: A cognitive linguistic account. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.14 [Google Scholar]
  23. Plümacher, M.
    (2007) Color perception, color description and metaphor. InM. Plümacher & P. Holz (Eds.), Speaking of colors and odors (pp.61–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.8.04plu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.8.04plu [Google Scholar]
  24. Rich, A. N., & Mattingley, J. B.
    (2002) Anomalous perception in synaesthesia: A cognitive neuroscience perspective. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 31, 43–52. 10.1038/nrn702
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn702 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2017) Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: From basicity to complexity. InB. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse (pp.138–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108182324.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182324.009 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2020) Understanding figures of speech: Dependency relations and organizational patterns. Language & Communication, 711, 16–38. 10.1016/j.langcom.2019.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2019.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2021) Ten lectures on cognitive modeling: Between grammar and language-based inferencing. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004439221
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004439221 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2022) Analogical and non-analogical resemblance in figurative language: A cognitive-linguistic perspective. InS. Wuppuluri & A. C. Grayling (Eds.), Metaphors and analogies in sciences and humanities (pp.269–293). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑90688‑7_14
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90688-7_14 [Google Scholar]
  29. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Masegosa, A. G.
    (2014) Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.45 [Google Scholar]
  30. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Barreras Gómez, M. A.
    (2022) Linguistic and metalinguistic resemblance. InA. Bagasheva, B. Hristov & N. Tincheva (Eds.), Figurativity and human ecology (pp.15–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.17.01rui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.17.01rui [Google Scholar]
  31. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez Hernández, L.
    (2001) Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints and interaction. Language & Communication, 21(4), 321–357. 10.1016/S0271‑5309(01)00008‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(01)00008-8 [Google Scholar]
  32. Santibáñez Sáenz, F.
    (1999) Semantic structure, relational networks, and domains of reference. Journal of English Studies, 11, 271–288. 10.18172/jes.52
    https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.52 [Google Scholar]
  33. Shams, L., Kamitani, Y., & Shimojo, S.
    (2000) Illusions: What you see is what you hear. Nature, 4081, 788–788. 10.1038/35048669
    https://doi.org/10.1038/35048669 [Google Scholar]
  34. Strik Lievers, F.
    (2016) Synaesthetic metaphors in translation. Studi e Saggi Linguistici, 54(1), 43–69.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (2017) Figures and the senses: Towards a definition of synaesthesia. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 83–101. 10.1075/rcl.15.1.04str
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.1.04str [Google Scholar]
  36. Winter, B.
    (2019) Synaesthetic metaphors are neither synaesthetic nor metaphorical. InL. J. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque & A. Majid (Eds.), Perceptual metaphors (pp.105–126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.19.06win
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.06win [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00110.rui
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00110.rui
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