1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Metaphor and the Social World
  4. Volume 13, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 13, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4070
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4097
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The present contribution addresses the notion of and discusses different positions in relation to this complex and multi-dimensional phenomenon. Generally, the notion of is used when metaphor is not considered a binary category anymore, or when the status of an expression as metaphorical is at stake (e.g. in discussions of metaphor identification). We will focus on the first understanding of metaphoricity as a scalar phenomenon. Despite the fact that the term is used more and more in the metaphor literature, it is often unclear what it actually entails, e.g. how metaphor is gradable. To shed light on this theoretical and methodological problem, in this paper we will discuss different notions of the term by illustrating how metaphoricity is understood and how it can be operationalized and studied.

© 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/msw.00027.jul
2023-07-07
2025-06-20

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/msw.00027.jul
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Beger, A.
    (2019) The contested notion of ‘deliberate metaphor’: What can we learn from ‘unclear’ cases in academic lectures?Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 7(1), 51–66. 10.1515/gcla‑2019‑0004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2019-0004 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bortfeld, H., & McGlone, M. S.
    (2001) The Continuum of Metaphor Processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(1 & 2), 75–86. 10.1080/10926488.2001.9678887
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678887 [Google Scholar]
  3. Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V.
    (2014) Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 461, 904–911. 10.3758/s13428‑013‑0403‑5
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5 [Google Scholar]
  4. Caballero, R., & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
    (2013) Ways of perceiving, moving, and thinking: Revindicating culture in conceptual metaphor research. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1–2), 268–290. 10.1515/cogsem.2013.5.12.268
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem.2013.5.12.268 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cameron, L.
    (2003) Metaphor in educational discourse. Bloomsbury Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Cameron, L., & Maslen, R.
    (Eds.) (2010) Metaphor analysis. Research practice in Applied Linguistics, Social Sciences and the Humanities. Equinox.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Cox, A.
    (2016) Music and Embodied Cognition. Listening, Moving, Feeling, and Thinking. Indiana University Press. 10.2307/j.ctt200610s
     https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt200610s [Google Scholar]
  8. Devylder, S., & Zlatev, J.
    (2020) Cutting and Breaking Metaphors of the Self and the Motivation and Sedimentation Model. InA. Baicchi & G. Radden (Eds.), Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language. John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.9.11dev
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.9.11dev [Google Scholar]
  9. Dirven, R.
    (2003) Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualization. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (2nd ed., pp.75–111). Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.1.75
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.1.75 [Google Scholar]
  10. Gibbs, Jr., R. W.
    (1994) The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. (2015) Counting Metaphors: What Does this Reveal about Language and Thought?Cognitive Semantics, 1(2), 155–177. 10.1163/23526416‑00102001
     https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-00102001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Gibbs, Jr., R. W. Jr.
    (2017) Metaphor Wars. Conceptual Metaphors in Human Life. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Goatly, A.
    (2011[1997]) The Language of Metaphors (2nd ed.). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Grady, J. E., Oakley, T., & Coulson, S.
    (1999) Blending and metaphor. InG. J. Steen & R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 101–124). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.175.07gra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.175.07gra [Google Scholar]
  15. Hampe, B.
    (2017) Embodiment and Discourse: Dimensions and Dynamics of Contemporary Metaphor Theory. InB. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor. Embodied Cognition and Discourse. (pp. 3–23). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108182324.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182324.002 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hanks, P.
    (2006) Metaphoricity is gradable. InA. Stefanowitsch & S. T. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. (pp. 17–35). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199895.17
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199895.17 [Google Scholar]
  17. Jensen, T. W.
    (2017) Doing Metaphor: An Ecological Perspective on Metaphoricity in Discourse. InB. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied Cognition and Discourse (pp. 257–276). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108182324.015
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182324.015 [Google Scholar]
  18. Jensen, T. W., & Cuffari, E.
    (2014) Doubleness in Experience: Toward a Distributed Enactive Approach to Metaphoricity. Metaphor and Symbol, 29(4), 278–297. 10.1080/10926488.2014.948798
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2014.948798 [Google Scholar]
  19. Jensen, T. W., & Greve, L.
    (2019) Ecological cognition and metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(1), 1–16. 10.1080/10926488.2019.1591720
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2019.1591720 [Google Scholar]
  20. Julich-Warpakowski, N.
    (2022) Motion Metaphors in Music Criticism: An Empirical Investigation of their Conceptual Motivation and their Metaphoricity. John Benjamins. 10.1075/milcc.10
     https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.10 [Google Scholar]
  21. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors We Live By. The University Of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. (1999) Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Littlemore, J.
    (2015) Metaphor in specialist discourse. Insights and implications for metaphor studies and beyond. InJ. B. Herrmann & T. Berber Sardinha (Eds.), Metaphor in Specialist Discourse (Vol.41, pp.299–314). John Benjamins. 10.1075/milcc.4.12lit
     https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.4.12lit [Google Scholar]
  24. Müller, C.
    (2008) Metaphors Dead and Alive, Sleeping and Waking. A Dynamic View. The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226548265.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226548265.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Müller, C., & Tag, S.
    (2010) The Dynamics of Metaphor: Foregrounding and Activating Metaphoricity in Conversational Interaction. Cognitive Semiotics, 10(6), 85–120. 10.3726/81610_85
     https://doi.org/10.3726/81610_85 [Google Scholar]
  26. Nacey, S., Dorst, A. G., Krennmayr, T., & Reijnierse, W. G.
    (Eds.) (2019) Metaphor Identification in Multiple Languages. MIPVU around the world. (Vol.221). John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/celcr.22
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.22 [Google Scholar]
  27. Nacey, S., Krennmayr, T., Dorst, A. G., & Reijnierse, W. G.
    (2019) What the MIPVU protocol doesn’t tell you (even though it mostly does). InS. Nacey, A. G. Dorst, T. Krennmayr, & W. G. Reijnierse (Eds.), Metaphor Identification in Multiple Languages. MIPVU around the world (Vol.221, pp.41–67). John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.22.03nac
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.22.03nac [Google Scholar]
  28. 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]
  29. Reijnierse, W. G.; Burgers, C. F.; Krennmayr, T.; Steen, G. J.
    (2018) DMIP: A Method for Identifying Potentially Deliberate Metaphor in Language Use. Corpus Pragmatics, 21, 129–147. 10.1007/s41701‑017‑0026‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-017-0026-7 [Google Scholar]
  30. Reijnierse, W. G., Burgers, C., Bolognesi, M., & Krennmayr, T.
    (2019) How Polysemy Affects Concreteness Ratings: The Case of Metaphor. Cognitive Science, 431, 2–11. 10.1111/cogs.12779
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12779 [Google Scholar]
  31. Ricoeur, P.
    (1986) Die lebendige Metapher. Wilhelm Fink.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Semino, E.
    (2008) Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 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]
  34. Steen, G. J.
    (2007) Finding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage: A methodological analysis of theory and research. John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.10
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.10 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2011a) The contemporary theory of metaphor now new and improved!Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 26–64. 10.1075/rcl.9.1.03ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.1.03ste [Google Scholar]
  36. Steen, G. J.
    (2011b) From three dimensions to five steps: The value of deliberate metaphor. Metaphorik.de, 211, 83–110.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Steen, G. J.
    (2017) Deliberate Metaphor Theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1), 1–24. 10.1515/ip‑2017‑0001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T.
    (2010) A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.14
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14 [Google Scholar]
  39. Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2006) Words and their metaphors: A corpus-based approach. InA. Stefanowitsch & S. T. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. (Vol.1711, pp.63–105). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199895.63
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199895.63 [Google Scholar]
  40. Urbonaitė, J., Šeškauskienė, I., & Cibulskienė, J.
    (2019) Linguistic metaphor identification in Lithuanian. InS. Nacey, A. G. Dorst, T. Krennmayr, & W. G. Reijnierse (Eds.), Metaphor Identification in Multiple Languages. MIPVU around the world (Vol.221, pp.159–181). John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/celcr.22.08urb
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.22.08urb [Google Scholar]
  41. Zlatev, J., & Blomberg, J.
    (2016) Embodied intersubjectivity, sedimentation and non-actual motion expressions. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 39(2), 185–208. 10.1017/S0332586516000123
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586516000123 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/msw.00027.jul
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): conventionality; dynamic; gradability; metaphor; metaphoricity; semantic similarity

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