Volume 18, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



A major insight of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) is that it added a strong, empirically testable cognitive dimension to the study of metaphor that is capable of changing the way we think about metaphor not only in language, but also thought and action, and, ultimately, the way we do philosophy (Lakoff & Johnson, 19801999). In the paper, I argue that CMT itself needs to be changed in several ways. In particular, I suggest (1) that it has to be given a much more elaborate contextual component than is currently available, (2) that even its cognitive dimension needs to be refined, (3) that it requires a component that can explain the actual usages of metaphors in natural discourse, and (4), and most significantly, that it needs to be changed in such a way that the modifications under (1), (2), and (3) can be integrated into a unified and coherent theory of metaphor. The paper is based on my forthcoming book (Kövecses, 2020).


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Barsalou, L.
    (1992) Cognitive psychology: An overview for cognitive scientists. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Clausner, T., & Croft, W.
    (1997) Productivity and schematicity in metaphors. Cognitive Science, 21(3), 247–282. 10.1207/s15516709cog2103_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2103_1 [Google Scholar]
  3. Dancygier, B. & Sweetser, E.
    (2014) Figurative language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. David, O., Lakoff, G., & Stickles, E.
    (2016) Cascades in metaphor and grammar. Constructions and Frames, 8(2), 214–255. 10.1075/cf.8.2.04dav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.8.2.04dav [Google Scholar]
  5. Edwards, D.
    (1999) Emotion discourse. Culture & Psychology, vol.5(3), 271–291. 10.1177/1354067X9953001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X9953001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Evans, V.
    (2013) Language and time. A Cognitive Linguistics approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107340626
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107340626 [Google Scholar]
  7. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
    (2002) The way we think. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Gibbs, R. W.
    (2017) The embodied and discourse views of metaphor: Why these are not so different and how they can be brought closer together. InB. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor. Embodied cognition and discourse (pp.319–335). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108182324.018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182324.018 [Google Scholar]
  9. Goatly, A.
    (1997) The language of metaphors. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203210000
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203210000 [Google Scholar]
  10. Grady, J. E.
    (1997) Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (1999) A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor. InR. Gibbs & G. Steen, (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.79–100). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.175.06gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.175.06gra [Google Scholar]
  12. Kövecses, Z.
    (1995) American friendship and the scope of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 6(4), 315–346. 10.1515/cogl.1995.6.4.315
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1995.6.4.315 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2002/2010) Metaphor. A practical introduction. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2010) A new look at metaphorical creativity in cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(4), 663–697. 10.1515/cogl.2010.021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2010.021 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2015) Where metaphors come from. Reconsidering the role of context in metaphor. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2017) Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(2), 321–347. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0052
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0052 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2020) Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108859127
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108859127 [Google Scholar]
  18. Lakoff, G.
    (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. Second edition. (pp.202–251). Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  19. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (1999) Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Musolff, A.
    (2006) Metaphor scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 21(1), 23–38. 10.1207/s15327868ms2101_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2101_2 [Google Scholar]
  22. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L.
    (2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, de- velopments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 161–185. 10.1080/10926488.2011.583189
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.583189 [Google Scholar]
  23. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A.
    (2014) Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.45 [Google Scholar]
  24. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2020) Understanding figures of speech: Dependency relations and organizational patterns. Language & Communication, 71, 16–38. 10.1016/j.langcom.2019.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2019.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  25. Semino, E.
    (2008) Metaphor and discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 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]
  27. (2011) 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]
  28. Zinken, J.
    (2007) Discourse metaphors: The link between figurative language and habitual analogies. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(3), 445–466. 10.1515/COG.2007.024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.024 [Google Scholar]

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