The utility of reversed transfers in metaphor

2002

Metaphor involves the use of a source domain (vehicle domain) to affect a target domain (tenor domain) in some way. For instance, the source domain may be used to generate hypotheses about the target domain or to highlight parts of the target domain. Typically these effects can be cast as the transfer of pieces of information or other items from the source domain to the target domain. Such transfer is extensively addressed in the literature. However, transfer in the reverse direction is rarely discussed in any detail, and then only for limited purposes. This article argues that "reverse" transfer from target to source is of much more widespread, fundamental importance than seems to have been realized. One of the conclusions is that it is often more effective, during discourse understanding, to translate information from literal sentences into prevailing metaphorical terms than to translate the information from metaphorical sentences into literal terms. The issues have been obscured by failure to distinguish between different notions of direction in metaphor: intuitive directions of static source/target mappings; directions of individual transfers; and direction of main intended transfer. In particular, clarifying these different notions of direction throws new light on what the asymmetry of metaphor amounts to. The article also briefly explains the support for target-to-source transfer in an AI program for metaphorical reasoning called ATT-Meta, implemented in an AI project. However, the issues discussed are relevant to all disciplines concerned with metaphor.

We consider the varieties and directions of influence that the source and target domains involved in a conceptual metaphor can have on each other during the course of understanding metaphorical utterances based on the metaphor. Previous studies have been restricted both as to direction of influence and as to type of influence. They have been largely confined to the "forward" (source to target) direction of influence, and they have concentrated on the transfer of features or propositions and (to some extent) the highlighting of aspects of a domain. By contrast, this article stresses the importance both of other varieties of influence (e.g., transfer of queries and uncertainty effects) and of "reverse" influence (target to source). We seek to curb the natural tendency to think that, because metaphor involves an overall move from source to target, therefore all inter-domain influences in the course of understanding go in that direction. The bulk of the article explores the theoretical issues involved. These issues have arisen out of a reasoning-based approach to metaphor, seeking to make best use of information from metaphorical utterance, context, source and target domains, and known metaphorical mappings, by applying a complex overall reasoning process. The article briefly explains the thorough implementation of reverse influence in a computer program for metaphorical reasoning called ATT-Meta, although the theoretical considerations are relevant to all disciplines concerned with metaphor. We make some suggestions for further computational and psychological research on metaphor.

Poetics Today, 2017

It is widely held that the direction of mapping from the source to the target domain in metaphors derives directly from the conceptual relations between its members (e.g., from concrete to abstract, from salient to less salient). In contrast, the authors propose the following: (1) The relation between the same two concepts/domains can, in principle, be either bidirectional or unidirectional. Hence, even if there is a conceptual asymmetry between the metaphor concepts/domains (so that one of them is a better candidate for being assigned the source function than the other), this conceptual asymmetry in itself might not be sufficient to trigger a unidirectional mapping process. (2) Among those two potential relations, the bidirectional one is more basic than the unidirectional, in that it can be triggered by the mere presence of the two stimuli; in contrast, the unidirectional process requires an additional mechanism for it to be fully realized. The authors survey and analyze several empirical findings that can be accounted for by this proposal. Then the authors introduce and discuss the ways the linguistic structure in which the metaphor is embedded may function as the mechanism by which bidirectional metaphors may turn into unidirectional ones.

Metaphor and Symbol, 2006

Class inclusion theory asserts that one cannot reverse the topic and vehicle of a metaphor and produce a new, meaningful metaphor that is based on the same interpretive ground. In 2 experiments we test that claim. In Study 1 we replicate the procedures employed by that provided support for the assertion. However we now add experimental conditions in which the target metaphors, either with the topic and vehicle in its canonical order or reversed, are placed in discourse contexts that provide support for a meaningful interpretation based on the same ground. In contrast to the prediction of class inclusion theory, fully 72% of the cases the reversed metaphors were rated as interpretable and interpretation was based on the same ground used in interpreting the metaphors in their canonical order. In Study 2, the online processing of the metaphors in context are examined in a word-by-word reading task. We find that canonical and reversed order metaphors were read at the same rate throughout and both sets exhibited the same reading patterns: increased reading time of the noun-phrase (NP) that contains the metaphoric vehicle and of the first word in the text that follows the metaphor. We take these data to indicate that nonreversibility cannot be taken as a necessary condition of metaphor.

This paper aims at shedding light on some theories and views behind meaning transference in metaphor. The main motive behind handling this article is to show the complexity and pervasiveness of this linguistic device. Metaphor obscures its literal meaning while allowing a new understanding to emerge. Also, it can give concrete illustrations of objects. Most readers find abstractions alien to them that they need a concrete statement such as the one the analogy provides. In fact, metaphor is considered as a powerful device whenever one describes a new situation in terms of what has been described before.

2004

We consider the varieties and directions of influence that the source and target domains involved in a conceptual metaphor can have on each other during the course of understanding metaphorical utterances based on the metaphor. Previous studies have been restricted as to direction of influence and as to type of influence.

Rhetoric has been a very interesting phenomenon in the use of daily language, but then it is getting much more attractive linguistically with the employment of metaphor in an impressive way. Metaphorical expression, strictly speaking, has the capacity to decorate and beautify the content of speech in its own way. It brings about such an empowerment to the transfer of message and information. It, then, prominently bridges the smoother flow of rhetorical transference in a speech. With regard to the basic notion of systemic functional grammar, the term lexical metaphor has been part of ideational realization of metaphorical modes of expression

Proceedings of the First Cognitive Linguistics …, 2002

2007

Abstract This paper focuses on the interpretation of metaphor in discourse. We build on previous work (Agerri, Barnden, Lee, & Wallington, 2007) to offer a formalization in a computationally-oriented formal semantic framework of a set of mappings that we claim are required for the interpretation of map-transcending metaphor. Such mappings are domain-independent and are identified as invariant adjuncts to any conceptual metaphor.