1887
Volume 12, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4070
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4097
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Recent studies of metaphor usage (e.g., Cameron, 2011Semino et al., 2013) have shifted focus from relatively static mappings between source and target domains towards an emphasis on how metaphors are appropriated and recontextualized across different genres to convey new meanings and serve new functions. More recently, this emphasis has begun to be applied to the study of metaphor usage in religious discourse (Pihlaja, 2014Richardson, 2017Richardson et al., 2021). The current article investigates how metaphors of movement are used in conjunction with metonymy, force dynamics, and conceptual blending to create particular rhetorical effects in a debate between the atheist Richard Dawkins and the Christian apologist John Lennox. It demonstrates how previous figurative language is expanded and reconfigured during the course of the debate in an attempt to establish situated, dominant conceptualizations.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/msw.20004.ric
2022-02-07
2022-05-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Biernacka, E.
    (2013) The role of metonymy in political discourse. Unpublished PhD thesis. Milton Keynes: The Open University.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Cameron, L. J.
    (2011) Metaphor and reconciliation: the discourse dynamics of empathy in post-conflict conversations. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cameron, L. J., Low, G. D., & Maslen, R.
    (2010) Finding systematicity in metaphor use. InL. Cameron & R. Maslen (Eds.), Metaphor analysis: research practices in applied linguistics, social sciences and the humanities (pp.116–146). Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Charteris-Black, J.
    (2004) Corpus appraoches to critical metaphor analysis. Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230000612
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230000612 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2017) Fire metaphors: Discourses of awe and authority. Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chilton, P., & Kopytowska, M.
    (Eds.) (2018) Religion, language, and the human mind. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780190636647.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190636647.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dawkins, R.
    (1995) River out of Eden: A Darwinian view of life. Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2006) The God delusion. Transworld Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Deignan, A.
    (2005) Metaphor and corpus linguistics. John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.6 [Google Scholar]
  10. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
    (2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Gibbs, R. W., Jr.
    (2005) Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511805844
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805844 [Google Scholar]
  12. Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Cameron, L.
    (2008) The social-cognitive dynamics of metaphor performance. Cognitive Systems Research, 9(1–2), 64–75. 10.1016/j.cogsys.2007.06.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2007.06.008 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Santa Cruz, M. J.
    (2012) Temporal unfolding of conceptual metaphoric experience. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(4), 299–311. 10.1080/10926488.2012.716299
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2012.716299 [Google Scholar]
  14. Goatly, A.
    (2007) Washing the brain: Metaphor and hidden ideology. John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.23
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.23 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hart, C. J.
    (2014) Discourse, grammar and ideology: functional and cognitive perspectives. Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Harré, R. & van Langenhove, L.
    (Eds.) (1998) Positioning Theory. Basil Blackwell Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hobbs, V.
    (2021) An introduction to religious language: exploring Theolinguistics in contemporary contexts. Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781350095786
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350095786 [Google Scholar]
  18. Howe, B., & Green, J. B.
    (2014) Cognitive linguistic explorations in Biblical Studies. Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110350135
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110350135 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kövecses, Z.
    (2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (2015) Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  21. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Larsen-Freeman, D. E., & Cameron, L.
    (2008) Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Lennox, J. C.
    (2009) God’s undertaker: Has science buried God?Lion Hudson.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Littlemore, J.
    (2015) Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107338814
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338814 [Google Scholar]
  26. Musolff, A.
    (2004) Metaphor and political discourse: Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230504516
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230504516 [Google Scholar]
  27. Pihlaja, S.
    (2014) Antagonism on YouTube: Metaphor in online discourse. Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (2018) Religious talk online: The Evangelical discourse of Muslims, Christians, and Atheists. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316661963
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316661963 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2021) Talk about Faith: how debate and conversation shape belief. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108629881
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108629881 [Google Scholar]
  30. 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]
  31. Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
    (1999) Toward a theory of metonymy. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17–59). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad [Google Scholar]
  32. Richardson, P.
    (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), 233–261. 10.1075/msw.2.2.05ric
    https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.2.2.05ric [Google Scholar]
  33. (2017) An investigation of the blocking and development of empathy in discussions between 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]
  34. Richardson, P., & Mueller, C. M.
    (2019) Moving and being still: Exploring source domain reversal and force in explanations of enlightenment. Language and Cognition, 11(2), 310–339.   10.1017/langcog.2019.19
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2019.19 [Google Scholar]
  35. Richardson, P., Mueller, C. M., & Pihlaja, S.
    (2021) Cognitive Linguistics and religious language: An introduction. Routledge. 10.4324/9781003041139
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003041139 [Google Scholar]
  36. Richardson, P., Pihlaja, S., Nagashima, M., Wada, M., Watanabe, M., & Kheovichai, B.
    (2020) Blasphemy and persecution: Positioning in an inter- religious discussion. Text and Talk, 40(1), 75–98.   10.1515/text‑2019‑2049
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2019-2049 [Google Scholar]
  37. Richie, L. D.
    (2008) X IS A JOURNEY: Embodied simulation in metaphor interpretation. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(3), 174–199. 10.1080/10926480802223085
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480802223085 [Google Scholar]
  38. Semino, E.
    (2008) Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 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]
  40. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. I. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/msw.20004.ric
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/msw.20004.ric
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Cognitive Linguistics; force dynamics; interaction; Metaphor; religion
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