1887
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article examines whether metaphorical experiences are better characterized in terms of contiguity or cross-domain mappings. My claim is that many facets of concrete experience are infused with metaphoricity as part of our ordinary understanding of these events. Many source domains in conceptual metaphors may also be interpreted via different metaphorical ideas. If both source and target domains in metaphorical concepts may be characterized in metaphorical terms, then the relationship between them may be related via contiguity or metonymy rather than cross-domain mappings. For this reason, metaphorical concepts and language may originate in the contiguous, and at times almost isomorphic, relationships between concrete actions and larger metaphorical ideas.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00099.gib
2022-05-24
2024-04-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barcelona, A.
    (Ed.) (2000a) Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (2000b) 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). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (2002) Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.207–277). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.207
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.207 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barnden, J.
    (2010) Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21, 1–34. 10.1515/cogl.2010.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2010.001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Barsalou, L.
    (1993) Flexibility, structure, and linguistic vagary in concepts: Manifestations of a compositional system of perceptual symbols. InA. Collins, S. Gathercole, M. Conway & P. Morris (Eds.), Theories of memory (pp.29–101). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Black, M.
    (1993) More about metaphor. InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd edition) (pp.19–41). New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.004 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bolognesi, M., & Vernillo, P.
    (2019) How abstract concepts emerge from metaphorical images: The metonymic way. Language and Communication, 69, 26–41. 10.1016/j.langcom.2019.05.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2019.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  8. Borghi, A., & Binkofski, F.
    (2014) Words as social tools: An embodied view on abstract concepts. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4614‑9539‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9539-0 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bortfeld, H., & McGlone, M.
    (2001) The continuum of metaphor processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16, 75–86. 10.1080/10926488.2001.9678887
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678887 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brdar, M.
    (2015) Metonymic chains and synonymy. Fluminensia, 27, 83–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M.
    (2011) What do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of metonymy?InR. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp.217–248). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.12brd
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.12brd [Google Scholar]
  12. Croft, W.
    (2002) The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.161–205). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.161
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.161 [Google Scholar]
  13. Croft, W., & Cruse, A.
    (2004) Cognitive linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  14. Engberg-Pedersen, E.
    (1995) The concept of domain in the cognitive theory of metaphor. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 18, 111–119. 10.1017/S0332586500000123
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586500000123 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
    (2008) Rethinking metaphor. InR. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.53–66). New York: Cambridge University Pres. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.005 [Google Scholar]
  16. Forceville, C.
    (2009) Metonymy in visual and audiovisual discourse. InEi. Ventola & A. Guijarro (Eds.), The world told and the world shown: Issues in multisemiotics (pp.56–74). Basingstoke: Palgrave.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B.
    (2008) Metaphor as structure-mapping. InR. Gibbs (Ed.) The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.109–128). New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.008 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ghio, M., Vaghi, M., & Tettamanti, M.
    (2013) Fine-grained semantic categorization across the abstract and concrete domains. PLoS ONE, 8, e67090. 10.1371/journal.pone.0067090
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067090 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gibbs, R.
    (1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (1999) Taking metaphor out of ours heads and into the cultural world. InR. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics. (pp.145–166). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.175.09gib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.175.09gib [Google Scholar]
  21. (2006) Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (2015) The allegorical character of political metaphors in discourse. Metaphor and the Social World, 5, 264–282. 10.1075/msw.5.2.05gib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.5.2.05gib [Google Scholar]
  23. (2017) Metaphor wars: Conceptual metaphors in human life. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781107762350
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107762350 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2017) Metaphor and dynamical systems. InE. Semino & Z. Demjén (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language. (pp.56–69). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Gibbs, R., & Boers, E.
    (2005) Metaphoric processing of allegorical poetry. InZ. Maalej (Ed.), Metaphor and culture (pp.44–61). Tunis: University of Manouba Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gibbs, R., & Ferreira, L.
    (2011) Do people infer the entailments of conceptual metaphors during verbal metaphor understanding?InM. Brdar, S. Gries & M. Fuchs (Eds.) Convergence and expansion (pp.221–236). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.32.14gib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.32.14gib [Google Scholar]
  27. Glucksberg, S.
    (2008) How metaphors create categories – quickly. InR. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.67–83). New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.006 [Google Scholar]
  28. Goossens, L.
    (1990) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 323–340. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.3.323 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hilpert, M.
    (2005) Chained metonymies. InJ. Newman & S. Rice (Eds.): Experimental and empirical methods (pp.181–194). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hofstadter, D., & Sander, E.
    (2013) Surfaces and essences: Analogy as the fuel and fire of thinking. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Jakobson, R.
    (2002) The metaphoric and metonymic poles. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.41–47). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.41
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.41 [Google Scholar]
  32. Johansson Falck, M., & Gibbs, R.
    (2012) Embodied motivations for metaphoric meanings. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 251–272. 10.1515/cog‑2012‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0008 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kövecses, Z.
    (2010) Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd editon). New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (2013) The metaphor–metonymy relationship: Correlation metaphors are based on metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol, 28, 75–88. 10.1080/10926488.2013.768498
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2013.768498 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2020) Extended conceptual metaphor theory. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108859127
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108859127 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  37. (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.202–251). New York: Cambridge University Press
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (1999) Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Lindquist, K., & Barrett, L.
    (2012) A functional architecture of the human brain: Emerging insights from the science of emotion. Trends in Cognitive Science, 16, 533–540. 10.1016/j.tics.2012.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  41. Littlemore, J.
    (2015) Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107338814
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338814 [Google Scholar]
  42. Markman, A.
    (2013) Knowledge representation (2nd edition). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. 10.4324/9780203763698
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203763698 [Google Scholar]
  43. Mittelberg, I.
    (2019) Visuo-kinetic signs are inherently metonymic: How embodied metonymy motivates forms, functions, and schematic patterns in gesture. Frontiers in Psychology, 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00254
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00254 [Google Scholar]
  44. Mittelberg, I., & Waugh, L.
    (2009) Metonymy first, metaphor second: A cognitive-semiotic approach to multimodal figures of thought in co-speech gesture. InC. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp.329–356). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Munday, I., Newton-John, T., & Kneebone, I.
    (2020) ‘Barbed wire wrapped around my feet’: Metaphor use in chronic pain. British Journal of Health Psychology, 25, 814–830. 10.1111/bjhp.12432
    https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12432 [Google Scholar]
  46. Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D.
    (2001) Serial metonymy: A study of reference-based polysemisation. Journal of Historical Pragmatics2, 245–272. 10.1075/jhp.2.2.04ner
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.2.2.04ner [Google Scholar]
  47. Okonski, L., & Gibbs, R.
    (2019) Diving into the wreck: Can people resist allegorical meaning?Journal of Pragmatics, 141, 28–43. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.014 [Google Scholar]
  48. Panther, K-U.
    (2006) Metonymy as a usage event. InG. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp.147–185). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
    (Eds.) (2003) Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.113
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113 [Google Scholar]
  50. Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D.
    (2006) Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17, 269–316. 10.1515/COG.2006.007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.007 [Google Scholar]
  51. Perez-Sobrino, P.
    (2017) Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.2 [Google Scholar]
  52. Radden, G.
    (2002) How metonymic are metaphors?InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.407–434). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.407
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.407 [Google Scholar]
  53. Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
    (1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. InK-U. Panther & G. Radden, (Eds). Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17–59.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad [Google Scholar]
  54. Riemer, N.
    (2001) Remetonomyzing metaphor: Hypercategories in semantic extension. Cognitive Linguistics12, 379–401.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Rockridge Press
    Rockridge Press (2007) The ultimate fast metabolism diet cookbook. Berkeley, CA: Rockridge Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (1998) On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 259–274. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00006‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00006-X [Google Scholar]
  57. (2017) Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: From basicity to complexity. InB. Hampe (Ed.) Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse (pp.138–159). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez V., O.
    (2002) Patterns of conceptual interaction. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.501–546). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.489
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.489 [Google Scholar]
  59. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera-Masegosa, A.
    (2011) Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value, 3, 1–29. 10.6035/LanguageV.2011.3.2
    https://doi.org/10.6035/LanguageV.2011.3.2 [Google Scholar]
  60. Semino, E.
    (2010) Descriptions of pain, metaphor, and embodied simulation. Metaphor and Symbol, 25, 205–226. 10.1080/10926488.2010.510926
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2010.510926 [Google Scholar]
  61. Spoel, P., Harris, R., & Henwood, F.
    (2012) The moralization of healthy living: Burke’s rhetoric of rebirth and older adults’ accounts of healthy eating. Health, 16, 619–635. 10.1177/1363459312441009
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459312441009 [Google Scholar]
  62. Thibodeau, P., & Boroditsky, L.
    (2011) Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS ONE, 6: e16782. 10.1371/journal.pone.0016782
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016782 [Google Scholar]
  63. Vesalius, A.
    (2003) The fabric of the human body: An annotated translation of the 1543 and 1555 editions of “De Humani Corporis Fabrica Libri Septem”, D. Garrison & M. Hast (Eds.), Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Warren, B.
    (2002) An alternative account of the interpretation of referential metonymy and metaphor. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.113–130). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.113
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.113 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00099.gib
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00099.gib
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): contiguity; cross-domain mapping; embodiment; metaphor; metonymy
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