1887
Volume 26, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-9971
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9994
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

With the cognitive shift since the 1990s, metaphorical terms have become a recurrent theme in terminological studies. However, how they actually function in science communication has not been fully explored. The issue becomes more pressing today since the exponential expansion of knowledge has heightened our awareness of the need for new designations. And the metaphorical approach is often an economic choice. To gain more insights into the mechanism of metaphorical terms, the authors of the present study will reexamine their functional peculiarities by looking at their linguistic, cognitive and communicative facets respectively. The multidimensional functions of metaphorical terms as exemplified by those in economics are described in detail. More importantly, their dynamic functional potentialities as well as the interplay among them are further discussed.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/term.00052.jia
2020-12-04
2021-02-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alexiev, Boyan
    2004 “Towards an Experientialist Model of Terminological Metaphorisation”. Terminology, 10(2): 189–213. doi:  10.1075/term.10.2.03ale
    https://doi.org/10.1075/term.10.2.03ale [Google Scholar]
  2. Becker, Gary S.
    1964Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education. New York: Columbia University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bies, Werner
    1996 “Thinking with the help of images: on the metaphors of knowledge organization.” Knowledge Organization23(1), 3–8. doi:  10.5771/0943‑7444‑1996‑1‑3
    https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-1996-1-3 [Google Scholar]
  4. Boyd, Richard
    1993 “Metaphor and theory change: What is ‘metaphor’ a metaphor for?” InMetaphor and Thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony , 481–532. New York: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. doi:  10.1017/CBO9781139173865.023
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.023 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cabré, M. Teresa
    2000 “Elements for a theory of terminology: Towards an alternative paradigm”. Terminology6(1): 35–57. doi:  10.1075/term.6.1.03cab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/term.6.1.03cab [Google Scholar]
  6. 2003 “Theories of terminology: Their description, prescription and explanation”. Terminology9(2): 163–199. doi:  10.1075/term.9.2.03cab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/term.9.2.03cab [Google Scholar]
  7. Charteris-Black, Jonathan
    2009 “Metaphor and political communication”. InMetaphor and Discourse, ed. by Andreas Musolff , and Jörg Zinken , 97–115. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:  10.1057/9780230594647_7
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230594647_7 [Google Scholar]
  8. Condamines, Anne
    2017 “The emotional dimension in terminological variation: The example of transitivization of the locative complement in fishing”. InMultiple Perspectives on Terminological Variation, ed. by Patrick Drouin , Aline Francœur , John Humbley , and Aurelié Picton , 11–30. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:  10.1075/tlrp.18.01con
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tlrp.18.01con [Google Scholar]
  9. Cuadrado, Georgina , and Pilar Durán
    2013 “Proposal for a semantic hierarchy of terminological metaphors in science and technology”. International Journal of English Linguistics3(4): 1–14. doi:  10.5539/ijel.v3n4p1
    https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v3n4p1 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dion, Delphine , and Gérald Mazzalov
    2016 “Reviving sleeping beauty brands by rearticulating brand heritage”. Journal of Business Research69(12): 5894–5900. doi:  10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.105
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.105 [Google Scholar]
  11. Escribano, P. Durán , and Irina A. Álvarez
    2016 “Cross-disciplinary metaphorical meaning extension in the creation of new scientific terms”. Beyond the Universe of Languages for Specific Purposes: The 21st century perspective: 107–110.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Faber, Pamela .
    2014 “Neural substrates of specialized knowledge representation: an fMRI study”. Revue française de linguistique appliquée19(1): 15–32. doi:  10.3917/rfla.191.0015
    https://doi.org/10.3917/rfla.191.0015 [Google Scholar]
  13. Faber, Pamela , and Carlos Márquez Linares
    2004 “The role of imagery in specialized communication”. InImagery in Language, ed. by Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Alina Kwiatkowska , 585–602. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2005 “A three-level model of metaphor for specialized communication”. Translationswissenschaft im interdisziplinären Dialog: 71–94.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Faber, Pamela
    2012 “Conclusion”. InA Cognitive Linguistics View of Terminology and Specialized Language, ed. by Pamela Faber , 249–258. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110277203.249
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110277203.249 [Google Scholar]
  16. Faber, Pamela , and Antonio S. M. Pizarro
    2012 “Specialized language pragmatics”. InA Cognitive Linguistics View of Terminology and Specialized Language, ed. by Pamela Faber , 177–203. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110277203
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110277203 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fauconnier, Gilles
    1997Mappings in Thought and Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9781139174220
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174220 [Google Scholar]
  18. Felber, Helmut
    1984Terminology Manual. Paris: UNESCO & INFOTERM.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Finatto, M. J. Bocorny
    2010 “Metaphors in scientific and technical languages: Challenges and perspective”. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada26(SPE): 645–656. doi:  10.1590/S0102‑44502010000300012
    https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-44502010000300012 [Google Scholar]
  20. Frezza, Giulia , and Elena Gagliasso
    2017 “Building metaphors: Constitutive narratives in science”. InMetaphor in Communication, Science and Education, ed. by Francesca Ervas , Elisabetta Gola , and Maria G. Rossi , 199–216. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110549928‑012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110549928-012 [Google Scholar]
  21. Goatly, Andrew
    1997The Language of Metaphors. London/New York: Routledge. doi:  10.4324/9780203210000
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203210000 [Google Scholar]
  22. Han, Jing
    2009 “A sketch of games of translation”. Journal of Language and Literature (4): 65–66.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kageura, Kyo
    2002The Dynamics of Terminology: A descriptive theory of term formation and terminological growth. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:  10.1075/tlrp.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tlrp.5 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lakoff, George , and Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lakoff, George
    1987Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi:  10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  26. 1993 “The contemporary theory of metaphor”. InMetaphor and Thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony , 202–251. New York: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. doi:  10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  27. Meyer, Ingrid , and Kristen Mackintosh
    1996 “Refining the terminographer’s concept-analysis: How can phraseology help”. Terminology3(1): 1–26. doi:  10.1075/term.3.1.02mey
    https://doi.org/10.1075/term.3.1.02mey [Google Scholar]
  28. Meyer, Ingrid , Victoria Zaluski , and Kristen MacIntosh
    1997 “Metaphorical Internet terms: a conceptual and structural analysis.” Terminology4(1): 1–33. doi:  10.1075/term.4.1.03mey
    https://doi.org/10.1075/term.4.1.03mey [Google Scholar]
  29. Morgenstern, Oskar , and John Von Neumann
    1953Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Prandi, Michele
    2010 “Typology of Metaphors: Implications for Translation.” Mutatis Mutandis: Revista Latinoamericana de Traducción3(2): 304–332.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Reeves, Carol
    2005The Language of Science. London/New York: Routledge. doi:  10.4324/9780203597125
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203597125 [Google Scholar]
  32. Resche, Catherine
    2001 “Equivocal Economic Terms or Terminology Revisited.” Meta, 45 (1): 158–173. doi:  10.7202/003940ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003940ar [Google Scholar]
  33. 2012 “Towards a better understanding of metaphorical networks in the language of economics: The importance of theory-constitutive metaphors.” InMetaphor and Mills: Figurative Language in Business and Economics, ed. by Honesto Herrera-Soler , and Michael White , 77–102. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. doi:  10.1515/9783110274585.77
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110274585.77 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2013Economic Terms and Beyond: Capitalising on the Wealth of Notions. Bern: Peter Lang. doi:  10.3726/978‑3‑0351‑0589‑6
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0589-6 [Google Scholar]
  35. Richardt, Susanne
    2005Metaphor in Languages for Special Purposes: The Function of Conceptual Metaphor in Written Expert Language and Expert-Lay Communication in the Domains of Economics, Medicine and Computing. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Rossi, Micaela
    2017a “Terminological metaphors and the nomadism of specialized terms: Some observations on intralinguistic and interlinguistic variation”. InMultiple Perspectives on Terminological Variation, ed. by Patrick Drouin , Aline Francœur , John Humbley , and Aurelié Picton , 181–211. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:  10.1075/tlrp.18.08ros
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tlrp.18.08ros [Google Scholar]
  37. 2017b “Some observations about metaphors in specialised languages”. InMetaphor in Communication, Science and Education, ed. by Francesca Ervas , Elisabetta Gola , and Maria G. Rossi , 151–168. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110549928‑012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110549928-012 [Google Scholar]
  38. Sager, Juan. C.
    1990A Practical Course in Terminology Processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. 10.1075/z.44
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.44 [Google Scholar]
  39. Sánchez, M. Tercedor , Clara I. L. Rodríguez , Carlos Márquez Linares , and Pamela Faber
    2012 “Metaphor and metonymy in specialized language”. In Faber, P. (eds.). 64–102. A Cognitive Linguistics View of Terminology and Specialized Language. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110277203
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110277203 [Google Scholar]
  40. Schultz, Theodore W.
    1961 “Investment in human capital”. The American Economic Review51(1): 1–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Shumeli, Arjan , Esmeralda Sotiri , and Rajmonda Novaku
    2012 “A comparative analysis of term-formation in the field of earth sciences: Terminologization and reterminologization”. ANGLISTICUM. Journal of the Association for Anglo-American Studies1(2): 37–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Smith, Adam
    1776An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London: W. Stahan & T. Cadell.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Temmerman, Rita
    1997 “Questioning the univocity ideal. The difference between socio-cognitive terminology and traditional terminology”. HERMES-Journal of Language and Communication in Business10(18): 51–90. doi:  10.7146/hjlcb.v10i18.25412
    https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v10i18.25412 [Google Scholar]
  44. 2000Towards New Ways of Terminology Description. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co. doi:  10.1075/tlrp.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tlrp.3 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2002 “Metaphorical models and the translator’s approach to scientific texts”. Linguistica Antverpiensia. New Series-Themes in Translation Studies (1): 211–226.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Ureña, J. Manuel
    2011Metaphor in Specialised Language: An English-Spanish Comparative Study. Granada: University of Granada.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 2012 “Conceptual types of terminological metaphors in marine biology: An English-Spanish contrastive analysis from an experientialist perspective”. InMetaphor in Use: Context, Culture and Communication, ed. by MacArthur, F. , 239–260. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. doi:  10.1075/hcp.38.18man
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.38.18man [Google Scholar]
  48. Wang, Bin
    2004 “Translation and games”. Journal of University of Shanghai for Science and Technology (2): 25–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Wei, Xiangqing
    2018 “Conceptualization and theorization of terminology translation in humanities and social sciences”. Terminology24(2): 262–288. doi:  10.1075/term.00021.wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/term.00021.wei [Google Scholar]
  50. White, Michael
    2003 “Metaphor and Economics: The Case of Growth”. English for Specific Purposes22(2): 131–151. doi:  10.1016/S0889‑4906(02)00006‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00006-6 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/term.00052.jia
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/term.00052.jia
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): functional potentialities , functions , metaphorical terms in economics and reconsideration
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