1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association
  4. Volume 19, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 19, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

According to the dynamic view of metaphor, the complexities of metaphorical expressions are emergent products of language use. However, this view lacks an explicit mechanism to account for the process. This paper puts forward a model named (SINE), and uses rules in the model to explain the temporal order and regularities that the metaphoremes of a metaphor should follow in their emergence. The validity of the model is tested in the case studies of Chinese verb metaphors, which reveal four rules that govern the metaphoreme emergence of Chinese verb metaphors. These rules are obtained via the analysis of the occurrence order of metaphoremes by performing DepCluster, a machine learning tool for collostruction generation, over a large-scale diachronic corpus. The case studies demonstrate that the proposed model is applicable to Chinese verb metaphors.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00077.tan
2021-04-28
2023-09-22

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00077.tan
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allan, K.
    (2009) Metaphor and metonymy: A diachronic approach. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnold, J. E. , Kaiser, E. , Kahn, J. M. , & Kim, L. K.
    (2013) Information structure: Linguistic, cognitive, and processing approaches. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4(4), 403–413. doi:  10.1002/wcs.1234
     https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1234 [Google Scholar]
  3. Black, M.
    (1954) Metaphor. Paper presented at themeetings of the Aristotelian Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bowdle, B. F. , & Gentner, D.
    (2005) The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216. 10.1037/0033‑295X.112.1.193
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193 [Google Scholar]
  5. Broccias, C.
    (2013) Cognitive Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.165–185). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bybee, J. L.
    (2010) Language, usage and cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cameron, L. J.
    (1999a) Identifying and describing metaphor in spoken discourse data. In G. Low & L. Cameron (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (pp.105–132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524704.009
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524704.009 [Google Scholar]
  8. (1999b) Operationalising ‘metaphor’ for applied linguistic research. In G. Low & L. Cameron (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (pp.3–28). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524704.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524704.004 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2007a) Confrontation or complementarity?: Metaphor in language use and cognitive metaphor theory. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 5(1), 107–135. 10.1075/arcl.5.06cam
     https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.5.06cam [Google Scholar]
  10. (2007b) Patterns of metaphor use in reconciliation talk. Discourse & Society, 18(2), 197–222. doi:  10.1177/0957926507073376
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926507073376 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cameron, L. J. , & Deignan, A.
    (2006) The emergence of metaphor in discourse. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 671–690. doi:  10.1093/applin/aml032
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml032 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cameron, L. J. , Maslen, R. , Todd, Z. , Maule, J. , Stratton, P. , & Stanley, N.
    (2009) The discourse dynamics approach to metaphor and metaphor-led discourse analysis. Metaphor and Symbol, 24(2), 63–89. 10.1080/10926480902830821
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480902830821 [Google Scholar]
  13. Coulson, S. , & Oakley, T.
    (2000) Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3/4), 175–196.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Croft, W. , & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  15. Deignan, A.
    (2005) Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.6 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2008) Corpus linguistics and metaphor. In R. W. J. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.280–294). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.018
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.018 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fauconnier, G.
    (1997) Mappings in thought and language. Cambridg & New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139174220
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174220 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2001) Conceptual blending. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp.2495–2498). Oxford: Pergamon. 10.1016/B0‑08‑043076‑7/00363‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/00363-6 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2018) Ten lectures on cognitive construction of meaning. Leiden & Boston: Brill. 10.1163/9789004360716
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004360716 [Google Scholar]
  20. Fauconnier, G. , & Turner, M.
    (1996) Blending as a central process of grammar. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp.113–129). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. (1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187. 10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2002) The way we think : Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Gibbs, J. R. W.
    (2010) The dynamic complexities of metaphor interpretation. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada, 26, 657–677. 10.1590/S0102‑44502010000300013
     https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-44502010000300013 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2011) Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 528–564. 10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2011.606103 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2013) The real complexities of psycholinguistic research on metaphor. Language Sciences, 40, 45–52. doi:  10.1016/j.langsci.2013.03.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2013.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Gibbs, J. R. W. , & Cameron, L. J.
    (2008) The social-cognitive dynamics of metaphor performance. Cognitive Systems Research, 9(1), 64–75. doi:  10.1016/j.cogsys.2007.06.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2007.06.008 [Google Scholar]
  27. Gibbs, J. R. W. , & Colston, H. L.
    (2012) Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139168779
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139168779 [Google Scholar]
  28. Gibbs, J. R. W. , & Santa Cruz, M. J.
    (2012) Temporal unfolding of conceptual metaphoric experience. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(4), 299–311. doi:  10.1080/10926488.2012.716299
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2012.716299 [Google Scholar]
  29. Grady, J.
    (2005) Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1595–1614. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.03.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.03.012 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2007) Metaphor. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.188–213). New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Grady, J. , Oakley, T. , & Coulson, S.
    (1999) Blending and metaphor. In G. Steen & R. Gibbs (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.101–124). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.175.07gra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.175.07gra [Google Scholar]
  32. Gries, S. T.
    (2013) 50-something years of work on collocations: What is or should be next …. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 137–165. 10.1075/ijcl.18.1.09gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.1.09gri [Google Scholar]
  33. (2019) 15 years of collostructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 24(3), 385–412. 10.1075/ijcl.00011.gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.00011.gri [Google Scholar]
  34. Gries, S. T. , & Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2004) Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  35. Gundel, J. K. , & Fretheim, T.
    (2009) Information strucuture. In F. Brisard , J.-O. Ostman , & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Grammar, meaning and pragmatics (pp.146–160). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hoph.5Retrieved fromsite.ebrary.com/lib/ascc/Doc?id=10335311
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.5
  36. Hilpert, M.
    (2006) Distinctive collexemes and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics & Linguistic Theory, 2(2), 243–256. 10.1515/CLLT.2006.012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2006.012 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2008) Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.7
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.7 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kövecses, Z.
    (2015) Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lambrecht, K.
    (1994) Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  40. Manning, C. D. , Surdeanu, M. , Bauer, J. , Finkel, J. , Bethard, S. J. , & McClosky, D.
    (2014) The Stanford CoreNLP natural language processing toolkit. Paper presented at The 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations. 10.3115/v1/P14‑5010
     https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/P14-5010 [Google Scholar]
  41. Müller, C.
    (2008) Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking: A dynamic view. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226548265.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226548265.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  42. Müller, C. , & Schmitt, C.
    (2015) Audio-visual metaphors of the financial crisis: meaning making and the flow of experience. Revista Brasileira de Lingüística Aplicada, 15, 311–342. 10.1590/1984‑639820156315
     https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-639820156315 [Google Scholar]
  43. Müller, C. , & Tag, S.
    (2010) The dynamics of metaphor: Foregrounding and activating metaphoricity in conversational interaction Cognitive Semiotics , 10(6), pp.85–120). 10.3726/81610_85
     https://doi.org/10.3726/81610_85 [Google Scholar]
  44. Spivey, M. J.
    (2007) The continuity of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Stefanowitsch, A. , & Gries, S. T.
    (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  46. Tang, X.
    (2017) Lexeme-based collexeme analysis with DepCluster. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 13(1), 165–202. doi:  10.1515/cllt‑2015‑0007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2015-0007 [Google Scholar]
  47. Tang, X. , & Liu, G.
    (2018) Solving contradictions in semantic prosody analysis with prosody concord. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 23(4), 437–466. 10.1075/ijcl.17057.liu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.17057.liu [Google Scholar]
  48. Traugott, E. C. , & Dasher, R. B.
    (2002) Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Traugott, E. C. , & Trausdale, G.
    (2014) Constructionalization and constructional changes. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Turner, M. B.
    (2008) Frame blending. In R. R. Favretti (Ed.), Frames, corpora, and knowledge representation (pp.13–32). Bologna: Bononia University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Van Valin, R. D. , & LaPolla, R. J.
    (2002 (1997)) Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Beijing: Beijing University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00077.tan
Loading
How metaphoremes emerge
Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association 19, 80 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00077.tan
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00077.tan
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00077.tan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): if-then rule; metaphoreme emergence; single-scope integration network with entrenchment

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