Volume 4, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This paper contributes to research on metaphor variation in the context of world Englishes from a theoretical and an empirical point of view. Starting with a discussion of the dissonance between universality and cultural specificity in conceptual metaphor research, basic dimensions of variation are outlined that are relevant to conceptual metaphor theory (CMT). These dimensions inform a continuum of variation in CMT that ranges from basic conceptualizations (as primary metaphors) to the surface level of language use (as metaphorical expressions). The empirical part of the paper takes heed of this continuum of variation and outlines the methodological choices relevant to the description of conceptual metaphors in an associative task. The data are based on meaning interpretations given to novel English compounds by Māori and non-Māori speakers of New Zealand English. The results of the task highlight that Māori-English bilinguals apply a greater range of different conceptual metaphors compared to non-Māori bilingual and monolingual speakers of English. These results are discussed in terms of their implications for further research on metaphor variation in Aotearoa New Zealand and world Englishes.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Allwood, J.
    (2003) Meaning potentials and context: Some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning. In H. Cuyckens , R. Dirven & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp.29–66). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter doi: 10.1515/9783110219074.29
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219074.29 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ansah, G. N.
    (2014) Culture in embodied cognition: metaphorical/metonymic conceptualizations of fear in Akan and English. Metaphor and Symbol, 29 (1), 44–58. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2014.859483
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2014.859483 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bell, A.
    (2000) Maori and Pakeha English: A case study. In A. Bell & K. Kuiper (Eds.), New Zealand English (pp.221–248). Wellington: Victoria University Press; and Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/veaw.g25.13bel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g25.13bel [Google Scholar]
  4. Benton, R.
    (1985) Maori, English, and Maori English. In J. B. Pride (Ed.),Cross-cultural encounters: Communication and miscommunication (pp.110–120). Melbourne: River Seine Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Boers, F.
    (2003) Applied linguistics perspective on cross-cultural variation in conceptual metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 18 (4), 231–238. doi: 10.1207/S15327868MS1804_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1804_1 [Google Scholar]
  6. Booij, G.
    (2009) Compounding and Construction Morphology. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp.201–216). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Casasanto, D. & Dijkstra, K.
    (2010) Motor action and emotional memory. Cognition, 115(1), 179–185. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.11.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  8. Casasanto, D. & Gijssels, T.
    (2015) What makes a metaphor an embodied metaphor?Linguistics Vanguard, 1(1), 327–337. doi: 10.1515/lingvan‑2014‑1015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2014-1015 [Google Scholar]
  9. Croft, W. & Cruse, A. D.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  10. D’Arcy, A.
    (2010) Quoting ethnicity: Constructing dialogue in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 14(1), 60–88. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2009.00437.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2009.00437.x [Google Scholar]
  11. Dancygier, B. & Sweetser, E.
    (2014) Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Deignan, A.
    (2005) Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/celcr.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.6 [Google Scholar]
  13. Díaz-Vera, J.
    (Ed.)(2014) Metaphor and metonymy across time and cultures. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M.
    (2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Geeraerts, D.
    (2002) The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In R. Dirven & R. Porings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.435–465). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110219197.435
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.435 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2016) The sociosemiotic commitment. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 527–542. doi: 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0058
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0058 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gibbs, R.
    (2005) Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511805844
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805844 [Google Scholar]
  18. (1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Goatly, A.
    (2007) Washing the brain: Metaphor and hidden ideology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.23
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.23 [Google Scholar]
  20. Goossens, L.
    (1990) Metaphtonomy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–340. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323 [Google Scholar]
  21. Grady, J.
    (1997) Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Grady, J. , Taub, S. , & Morgan, P.
    (1996) Primitive and compound metaphors. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp.177–187). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Harlow, R.
    (2015 [2001]) A Māori reference grammar. Wellington: Huia Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Holmes, J.
    (2005) Using Māori English in New Zealand. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 172, 91–115.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
    (2013) The relationship between conceptual metaphor and culture. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10(2), 315–339. doi: 10.1515/ip‑2013‑0014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2013-0014 [Google Scholar]
  26. Idström, A. & Piirainen, E.
    (Eds.) (2012) Endangered metaphors. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/clscc.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.2 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kachru, B. B. , Kachru, Y. , & Nelson, C. L.
    (Eds.) (2006) The handbook of world Englishes. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kharkhurin, A. V.
    (2012) Multilingualism and creativity. Bristol & Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. King, J.
    (1999) Talking bro: Māori English in the university setting. Te Reo, 42, 19–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kirkpatrick, A.
    (2007) World Englishes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (Ed.)(2010) The Routledge handbook of world Englishes. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kortmann, B. & Schneider, E.
    (Eds.)(2004) A handbook of varieties of English, vol.1 phonology, vol.2 morphology and syntax. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110197181
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197181 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kövecses, Z.
    (2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511614408
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2015) Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kövecses, Z. & Radden, G.
    (1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kristiansen, G. & Dirven, R.
    (Eds.) (2008) Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems. Berlin& New York: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110199154
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199154 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Lakoff, G. & Turner, M.
    (1989) More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  40. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical prerequisites.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. (2008) Cognitive Grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  42. Low, G. , Todd, Z. , Deignan, A. , & Cameron, L.
    (Eds.) (2010) Researching and applying metaphor in the real world. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.26
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.26 [Google Scholar]
  43. Mischler, J.
    (2013) Metaphor across time and conceptual space. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/clscc.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.3 [Google Scholar]
  44. Murphy, G. L.
    (1988) Comprehending complex concepts. Cognitive Science, 12, 529–562. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1204_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1204_2 [Google Scholar]
  45. Musolff, A.
    (2010) Metaphor, nation and the holocaust: The concept of the body politic. London & New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Naik, M. K. & Narayan, S. A.
    (2004) Indian English Literature 1980–2000: A critical survey. New Delhi: Pencraft International.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Onysko, A.
    (2010) Casting the conceptual spotlight: Hybrid compounding in German as an example of head-frame internal specifier selection. In A. Onysko & S. Michel (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on word formation (pp.243–300). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110223606.243
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110223606.243 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2014) Figurative processes in meaning interpretation: A case study of novel English compounds. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 2, 69–88. doi: 10.1515/gcla‑2014‑0006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2014-0006 [Google Scholar]
  49. (2015) Māori English on the background of cultural and linguistic contact in Aotearoa – New Zealand. In S. Coelsch-Foisner & H. Schendl (Eds.), Contact and conflict in English studies (pp.33–56).Wien: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. (2016) Enhanced creativity in bilinguals? Evidence from meaning interpretations of novel compounds. International Journal of Bilingualism, 20(3), 315–334. doi: 10.1177/1367006914566081
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006914566081 [Google Scholar]
  51. (2016) Crosslinguistic influence on headedness of novel English compounds: Evidence from bilingual speakers of te reo Māori and English. STUF – Language Typology and Universals, 69(4): 471–494.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Onysko, A. & Degani, M.
    (2014) Listening to a voice canoe: Differences in meaning association between Māori bilingual and Pākehā monolingual speakers. In A. Onysko , M. Degani & J. King (Eds.), He hiringa, he pūmanawa – Studies on the Māori language: In honour of Ray Harlow (pp.179–210). Wellington, NZ: Huia Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Pragglejaz Group
    Pragglejaz Group (2007) A practical and flexible method for identifying metaphorically-used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22, 1–39. doi: 10.1080/10926480709336752
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752 [Google Scholar]
  54. Pütz, M. , Robinson, J. , & Reif, M.
    (Eds.) (2014) Cognitive sociolinguistics: Social and cultural variation in cognition and language use. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/bct.59
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.59 [Google Scholar]
  55. Ryder, M. E.
    (1994) Ordered chaos: The interpretation of English noun-noun compounds. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Schmid, H. -J.
    (2011) Conceptual blending, relevance and novel N+N compounds. In S. Handl & H. -J. Schmid (Eds.), Windows to the mind: Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual blending (pp.219–246). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110238198.219
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238198.219 [Google Scholar]
  57. Sharifian, F.
    (2011) Cultural conceptualisations and language: Theoretical framework and applications. Amsterdam& Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/clscc.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.1 [Google Scholar]
  58. (Ed.) (2015) The Routledge handbook of language and culture. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Steen, G. J.
    (2007) Finding metaphor in grammar and usage. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/celcr.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.10 [Google Scholar]
  60. Steen, G. J. , Dorst, A. G. , Herrmann, B. J. , Kaal, A. , Krennmayr, T. , & Pasma, T.
    (2010) A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/celcr.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14 [Google Scholar]
  61. Taylor, J.
    (2003) Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Wisniewski, E. J.
    (1997) When concepts combine. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,4, 167–183. doi: 10.3758/BF03209392
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209392 [Google Scholar]
  63. Wolf, H. -G. & Polzenhagen, F.
    (2009) World Englishes: A cognitive sociolinguistic approach. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter doi: 10.1515/9783110199222
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199222 [Google Scholar]
  64. Yu, N.
    (2009) The Chinese heart in a cognitive perspective: Culture, body, and language. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110213348
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213348 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): bilingualism; conceptual metaphor; Māori; New Zealand English; variation; world Englishes
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