1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Metaphor and the Social World
  4. Volume 15, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 15, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2210-4070
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4097
EPUB
PDF

Abstract

Cognitive linguists have long argued that our comprehension of abstract concepts is primarily based on metaphorical or metonymic mappings from more concrete or familiar experiences (Lakoff & Johnson 1980/2008, 1999). Accordingly, metaphor identification commonly involves contrasting concrete senses of words with their contextual meanings. However, examples like and are reminders that, through metonymy, even highly familiar source concepts such as spatial areas can be targets grounded in abstract concepts. Both these instances evoke scenes in which the abstract notion of ‘nothingness’ is a space that physical entities move into.

This study highlights the complexity of figurative language and underscores the need for further exploration into how abstract concepts can ground our understanding of more concrete experiences. It also serves to bridge the gap between current metaphor identification practices and the directionality of metonymy. Focusing mainly on mappings in one direction can pose challenges for metaphor researchers, as they might mistakenly categorize such cases as metaphorical rather than as expressions of spatial relations. This is particularly relevant in contemporary metaphor research, which often relies on establishing the basic meanings of individual words to identify metaphorical relationships.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/msw.24030.joh
2025-10-01
2026-07-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/msw.24030.joh
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/msw.24030.joh.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/msw.24030.joh&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Barcelona, A.
    (2003a) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. De Gruyter, Inc. 10.1515/9783110894677
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894677 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2003b) On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. InA. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp.31–58). De Gruyter, Inc. 10.1515/9783110894677.31
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894677.31 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2024) Trends in cognitive-linguistic research on metonymy. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 11(1), 51–74. 10.1075/cogls.00112.bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00112.bar [Google Scholar]
  4. Bolognesi, M., & Vernillo, P.
    (2019) How abstract concepts emerge from metaphorical images: The metonymic way. Language & Communication, 691, 26–41. 10.1016/j.langcom.2019.05.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2019.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bottini, R., Crepaldi, D., Casasanto, D., Crollen, V., & Collignon, O.
    (2015) Space and time in the sighted and blind. Cognition, 1411, 67–72. 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.04.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V.
    (2014) Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 904–911. 10.3758/s13428‑013‑0403‑5
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E.
    (2014) Figurative language. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Davies, M.
    (2008–) Corpus of Concentemporary American English. Ininto.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Deignan, A.
    (2005) Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics (Vol.61). John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.6 [Google Scholar]
  10. Gibbs, R.
    (2022) Metaphorical experience: Contiguity or cross-domain mappings?Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 7–32. 10.1075/rcl.00099.gib
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00099.gib [Google Scholar]
  11. Harper, D.
    (n.d.). Exile. InOnline Etymology Dictionary. https://www.etymonline.com/word/exile#etymonline_v_14061
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Johansson Falck, M., & Okonski, L.
    (2022) Procedure for identifying metaphorical scenes (PIMS): A Cognitive Linguistics approach to bridge theory and practice. Cognitive Semantics, 8(2), 294–322. 10.1163/23526416‑bja10031
     https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-bja10031 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2023) Procedure for Identifying Metaphorical Scenes (PIMS): The Case of Spatial and Abstract Relations. Metaphor and Symbol, 38(1), 1–22. 10.1080/10926488.2022.2062243
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2022.2062243 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2024) Metaphorical and non-metaphorical meaning from spatial relations. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. 10.1075/rcl.00186.fal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00186.fal [Google Scholar]
  15. Katz, A. N., & Al-Azary, H.
    (2017) Principles that promote bidirectionality in verbal metaphor. Poetics Today, 38(1), 35–59. 10.1215/03335372‑3716215
     https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-3716215 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G.
    (1998) Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics (includes Cognitive Linguistic Bibliography), 9(1), 37–78. 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  17. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  18. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980/2008) Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. Basic books.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Langacker, R. W.
    (1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2002) Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Walter de Gruyter Inc.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 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]
  23. Matlock, T.
    (2004) Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory & Cognition, 32(8), 1389–1400. 10.3758/BF03206329
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206329 [Google Scholar]
  24. Merriam-Webster
    Merriam-Webster. (n.d.-a). Eternity. InMerriam-Webster Online Dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eternity
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Merriam-Webster
    Merriam-Webster. (n.d.-b). Heaven. InMerriam-Webster Online Dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heaven
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Merriam-Webster
    Merriam-Webster. (n.d.-c). Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Inhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/
  27. Merriam-Webster
    Merriam-Webster. (n.d.-d). Nothingness. InMerriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved2024-08-23, fromhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nothingness
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Merriam-Webster
    Merriam-Webster. (n.d.-e). Oblivion. InMerriam-Webster Online Dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oblivion
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Merriam-Webster
    Merriam-Webster. (n.d.-f). Rehab. InMerriam-Webster Online Dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rehab
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Merriam-Webster
    Merriam-Webster. (n.d.-g). View. InMerriam-Webster Online Dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/view
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 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]
  32. Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
    (2007) Towards a theory of metonymy. InV. Evans, B. Bergen, & J. Zinken (Eds.), The Cognitive Linguistics reader (pp.335–359). Equinox.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T.
    (2010) A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU (Vol.141). John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.14
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14 [Google Scholar]
  34. Sweetser, E.
    (1990) From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  35. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. : Vol. 1, Concept structuring systems. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Thibodeau, P., & Durgin, F. H.
    (2008) Productive figurative communication: Conventional metaphors facilitate the comprehension of related novel metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(2), 521–540. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.05.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Winter, B., & Srinivasan, M.
    (2022) Why is Semantic Change Asymmetric? The Role of Concreteness and Word Frequency and Metaphor and Metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol, 37(1), 39–54. 10.1080/10926488.2021.1945419
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2021.1945419 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/msw.24030.joh
Loading
From spatial to abstract and back again
Metaphor and the Social World 15, 218 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.24030.joh
/content/journals/10.1075/msw.24030.joh
/content/journals/10.1075/msw.24030.joh
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): abstract concepts; ABSTRACT FOR SPATIAL metonymies; directionality; intersubjective accessibility; metaphor and metonymy identification; metonymy; PIMS2; preposition into; spatial cognition

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