Readers' Responses to Metaphoricity in Keats' The Fall of Hyperion"

Drawing Attention to Metaphor, 2020

This volume is the product of a conference, The premeditated path. Deliberate metaphor in ancient and modern texts, that was held in Berlin in July 2016 under the auspices of the Excellence Cluster 264 ‘Topoi: The Formation and Transformation of Space and Knowledge in Ancient Civilizations’. The impetus for the conference and its subsequent publication was twofold: firstly to attempt to engage with the different sides of the debate about “deliberateness” or “marking” in metaphor usage and secondly to see whether texts from the ancient world could offer some new perspectives on the signalling of metaphorical language.

Synthese, 1984

A number of philosophers, linguists and psychologists have made the dual claim that metaphor is cognitively significant and that metaphorical utterances have a meaning not reducible to literal paraphrase. Such a position requires support from an account of metaphorical meaning that can render metaphors cognitively meaningful without the reduction to literal statement. It therefore requires a theory of meaning that can integrate metaphor within its sematics, yet specify why it is not reducible to literal paraphrase. I introduce the idea of a “second-order meaning”, of which metaphor is but one instance, that is a function on literal-conventional, i.e., first-order meaning, and outline a linguistic framework designed to provide a representation of linguistic meaning for both. This framework is designed to represent linguistic units ranging from a single word to an entire text since I argue that the by-now familiar position that the sentence is the appropriate unit for metaphor has mislead us into asking the wrong questions about metaphorical meaning. With this apparatus, we can specify the conditions under which an utterance may transcend the constraints on first-order meaning (transgressions not always apparent on the sentential level), without thereby being “meaningless”. Conversely, we can specify the conditions that may render apparently odd utterances first-order meaningful rather than metaphorical. In this way we see how metaphorical language differs both from deviant language and from specialized language such as technical language, fanciful and fantastical language (in fairy tales, science fiction, etc.).

In Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads, 253-81. Antonio Barcelona, ed. Berlin: Mouton, 2000

European Journal of English Studies, 2004

Journal of Pragmatics, 1998

Metaphor has long enjoyed a special status for students of rhetoric and literary criticism. For many, it exemplifies how literature differs from other, more mundane types of language use. The elucidation of metaphor has traditionally been viewed as a task for the humanities, but recent developments in the social sciences have challenged this academic franchise. The rise of psycholinguistics in the 1960s began this trend, with scientific study of the concept of grammar. The 1980s witnessed another step in this process the development of an approach referred to as the empirical study of literature. Although this term has been applied in various ways, I will define it rather narrowly for the purposes of this review. The empirical study of literature refers to the application of methodologies from experimental psychology and cognitive science to the study of literary production and comprehension.

Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Hardback), 2010

Respectus Philologicus, 2020

(representing universities and research institutions from Norway and The Netherlands) (2019: 1-21) outlines the theoretical and methodological foundations, purposes and aims of the Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP) and Metaphor Identification Procedure of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (MIPVU) frameworks. Starting with a clichéd statement that metaphor research is still of high interest in the scholarly community, it becomes clear that the founders of MIP and MIPVU intend to go new ways in linguistic metaphor research by looking for a new, more up-to-date approach to metaphor identification considering chances of globalization and digitization. "The academic community is clearly taking metaphor identification seriously, in the goal of producing reliable, replicable, and theoretically valid metaphor research" (p. 1). All in all, "[t]he aim of this volume is to bring together adjustments and adaptations of MIP and MIPVU across a range of different languages and language families into one coherent overview" (p. 2). Later on, in this review, we will see that exactly the need to adjust and to adapt brings more questions to the fore than was, possibly, initially intended by the researchers presenting their insights and findings. Although Chapter 1 sketches out history, methodology and intentions of MIP and MIPVU, some serious shortcomings and drawbacks can be noted, especially concerning two basic areas of any research to be conducted, first, the terminology used to create a theory and a methodology as well, and second, the history of research into metaphor. The former basic area finds its expression in the fact that in Chapter 1 the designations of the object of interest are manifold, as there are "metaphor" (p. 1), "linguistic metaphor" (p. 2), "a lexical unit … used metaphorically" (p. 6), "metaphorical words" (p. 6), "a word to be considered a metaphor" (p. 7), "words that have been … used in a metaphorical sense" (p. 7), "a particular word judged as a metaphor" (p. 7), "words … that are metaphor" (p. 8), "linguistic manifestations of metaphor" (p. 9), and finally "metaphor-related words (MRWs)" (p. 11), which shall be used as an instance of the intended identification procedure. Such a (for beginners, and maybe for experienced scholars, too) chaotic appearance of terms or term-like designations does not contribute to create a clear understanding of what the object of research interest might really be. That are different categories of linguistics phenomena can be covered by such a range of terms, starting with the word level and preliminarily ending with the broadest interpretation suggested by "linguistic manifestation of metaphor", which will include all that a language may offer that can become a metaphor. At this point, distinctions of kinds of metaphors are not mentioned yet. A distinction such as "direct", "indirect" and "implicit" metaphor may follow certain classical and recent theories of linguistic metaphor. Still, such labels as "deliberate" (p. 1) and "non-deliberate" (p. 12) metaphors should be treated as worthwhile

2015

Yasir Al-Jumaili, 2018

Much previous research on the representation of depression and melancholy in the poetry of John Keats has taken a biographical approach, judging his poetry with reference to known facts about his life. This study is different. It takes a cognitive perspective in which metaphors of negative mental states are analysed from a conceptual point of view. To do this I adopt current approaches to analysing metaphor, primarily Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) and Conceptual Integration Theory (CIT). I make use of identification procedures and the analysis of the following elements: source domains, conceptual metaphors, and cross-domain mappings. The study is based on a selection of poems; only the parts that relate to negative mental states are analysed. I begin by focusing on two poems (‘To Hope’ and ‘Ode to a Nightingale’) while testing my methodology, and then I broaden my focus to a Keats’s whole collection of poems in the final stage of my research. Analysing such metaphorical expressio...

Journal of Pragmatics, 2000

Goatly's book The language of metaphors is an extensive description of the linguistic appearances of metaphors and their functions and purposes. New insights into the analysis of metaphorical interpretation are provided. Many corpus examples (from literature and common use) are analyzed, with respect to the different grammatical forms in which Vehicle, Topic, Ground, or marker of metaphorical interpretation each may occur in discourse. This review will not provide the most pleasant reading experience you ever had. Apart from the capabilities of the reviewer, there are three reasons why encapsulating The language of metaphors does not lead to a neat review. The first is that Goatly discusses many different approaches to the subject of metaphor, introducing a lot of terminology. Secondly, his way of analyzing metaphor consists of categorizing many different appearances of metaphors, which leads to mentioning a lot of category names. The last reason is that Goatly uses capital letters to indicate terminology and categorizing terms. Frankly, it does not make the book itself a pleasure to read. With respect to the use of capital letters, I have chosen to keep a term capitalized (e.g. Topic), whenever I cite one. When I use similar terminology myself, explaining aspects of Goatly's work, I do not capitalize (e.g. topicalize). So, a capitalized word in this review is always taken from Goatly's book. Terms that are not capitalized in the review, but obviously stem from the book, did not have capitals in the book either. The term 'metaphor', for instance, is not capitalized in The language of metaphors. The chapters of the book can be divided into three groups: the first four chapters are involved with various linguistic approaches to the analysis of metaphorical meaning. Chapters 6, 7, and 8 are dedicated to an analysis of how the linguistic appearance of a metaphor or one of its constituting parts influences its interpretation. Chapters 5 and lO treat the communicative functions of metaphors.

Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: …, 2000

G. LAKOFF and M. JOHNSON's theory of cognitive linguistics and their definition of metaphor and metaphorical concepts have led to a variety of qualitative approaches whose common aim is to reconstruct metaphorical concepts and metaphorical reasoning in everyday language. Targets of these approaches were cross-cultural, cultural, subcultural, individual matters and metaphoric interaction. To illustrate this, two different strategies for a systematic procedure are briefly outlined.

The General Science Journal, 2022

The interest in the study of figurative language dates back to the Greek era, but it is in the last decades of the 20th century when it reaches its greatest intensity, especially the study of metaphor and its relationship with cognitive processes [3]. The analysis of this relationship is the objective of this work, which begins with a brief historical introduction to the philosophy of language. After it, a first reflection on knowledge and figurative language in which the most outstanding positions are analyzed: the standard pragmatic model, the theory of prototypes, and idealized cognitive models. This initial approach ends by considering the possible differences between literal and figurative language processing. This first reflection is followed by another on metaphor as a form of figurative language, which gives way to a summary of the most representative positions on the study of metaphor: M. Black; D. Davidson; J. Searle; G. Lakoff and M. Johnson; and WL Benzon and D, G, Hays. In the last part of the work, some considerations on the frequency and ubiquity of metaphors are exposed and some elements from organic evolution are suggested that could enrich the debate on metaphor and knowledge.

It is now accepted as axiomatic that metaphor pervades all kinds of human discourse, and popular scientific texts are no exception. Indeed, such texts often contain a remarkable number of metaphorical expressions, metaphor in popular science fulfilling a number of different functions. This thesis involves a text-based analysis of nearly 1400 translation examples drawn from a corpus consisting of the official published translations into French, Italian, German, Russian and Polish of 62 Scientific American articles that appeared between January 2003 and July 2004. It aims to provide a broadly qualitative analysis of the kinds of solution that translators commonly resort to in rendering both single metaphorical expressions and entire underlying structures. One of the main advantages of such a data-rich multilingual study is that it can potentially produce results that allow one to draw conclusions about a particular aspect of translation at a high level of generalisation, and this is a benefit that the work seeks to exploit. The approach adopted is inductive, and the thesis offers a categorisation of source-text metaphorical expressions along the lines of the following seven parameters: mapping, typological class, provenance, richness, level of categorisation, purpose and conventionality. Of these, three are used to produce a detailed analysis of the translation patterns contained in the corpus, the use of multiple parameters in this way making it possible to view the data from a range of different angles. Throughout, the work is informed by the insights of translation studies and metaphor studies, and indeed explores the relationship between these two disciplines. However, its ultimate centre of gravity lies within translation studies.

In recent research, metaphor is increasingly confronted in terms of a cline rather than a dichotomy. Yet the decision of whether a word or phrase is metaphoric is not as straightforward as a one-level cline suggests. The notion of 'metaphoric meaning' has further reaching implications on our language understanding and use than is commonly discussed. Metaphor is often subjective and dependent on changes in language specific to time period, genre, environment of the speakers or writers, and context. Furthermore personal experience and judgment are crucial factors in addressing and understanding meaning, whether metaphoric or literal. Approaching metaphor from a lexical stance, this research project adopts the psychological theory of lexical priming (Hoey 2005) as a way of explaining the collective linguistic patternings and associations within metaphor. The data is taken from a corpus of Nineteenth Century writings and focuses upon the single item flame. The focus is on a qualitative analysis of problematic cases of metaphor, which are not easily identifiable or characterized through collective primings. The research concludes that the functionality of 'metaphor' as an umbrella term is often too restrictive. Moreover the research serves to illustrate that the perspective on lexical metaphor should be re-focused on to the individual language user and the social processes that dominate our ever-changing use of language and meaning.