Figure-a-Tive Language

2001

Abstract In metaphor research there is usually some notion of transfer of aspects of the source domain to the target domain. More rarely, transfers in the opposite direction are countenanced, affecting one's perception of source as well as target. This paper argues that, even without this aim, transfers from target to source should happen.

2020

The paper explores the different approaches to metaphor understanding and metaphor translation within the fields linguistics and cognitive linguistics. Semantics scholars view metaphors as "the application of an alien name by transfer either from genus to species, or from species to species, or by analogy"(Aristotle), while pragmatics scholars view metaphor as being dependent on context. Scholars of the cognitive linguistics school (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Lakoff, 1987) portray metaphor as a system used to comprehend one conceptual domain in terms of another conceptual domain via sets of correspondences between these two domains. This paper focuses on the main approaches to metaphors understanding, and approaches to metaphor transfer and translation, as metaphor translation represents a burden for translators no matter the language. This is due to the fact that translation involves multiple processes that include both linguistic and non-linguistic elements. Based on linguistics and cognitive linguistics theories, a number approaches and procedures such as prescriptive approach, the descriptive approach and the cognitive approach have been developed by scholars for the translation of metaphorical expressions.

DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada, 2006

The purely cognitive representation of metaphor poses some difficulties. It is proposed that these difficulties can be tackled down in the alternative view proposed in this article, according to which there is an interdependence of conceptual and linguistic factors in the use of metaphor. Some linguistic regularities are identified in the interpretations of some types of metaphor, such as personification, and is argued that a richer description of these types of metaphor is obtained if the linguistic knowledge and semantic compositionality of topic and vehicle are taken into account.

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

Philosophy Compass, 2006

The most sustained and innovative recent work on metaphor has occurred in cognitive science and psychology. Psycholinguistic investigation suggests that novel, poetic metaphors are processed differently than literal speech, while relatively conventionalized and contextually salient metaphors are processed more like literal speech. This conflicts with the view of "cognitive linguists" like George Lakoff that all or nearly all thought is essentially metaphorical. There are currently four main cognitive models of metaphor comprehension: juxtaposition, category-transfer, feature-matching, and structural alignment. Structural alignment deals best with the widest range of examples; but it still fails to account for the complexity and richness of fairly novel, poetic metaphors.

This article deals with metaphor from a linguistic perspective. A question arises here as to whether to which field of language study metaphor belongs. How to answer the question is subject to our understanding of metaphorical expressions. When one encounters a situation in which a metaphorical expression is used, they have a kind of construal to conceptualize the expression. Thus, the field of linguistics which is concerned with studying metaphors is cognitive linguistics since people use their cognitive abilities to conceptualize and understand the metaphorical expressions. With respect to this, George Lakoff adopted a theory under the title Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT). Here I try to shed light on some aspects of this theory. What is taken into consideration in the paper is a detailed account of metaphor as a cognitive device, the three basic types of conceptual metaphor proposed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980), namely orientational, ontological, and structural. Also, the characteristic features of conceptual metaphors like asymmetry, systematicity, and conventionality. Additionally, the relationship between conceptual metaphor and image schemas is shown in the last section. One of the conclusions of the article is that conceptual metaphor is an integral part of our everyday lives; we cannot interact normally without using conceptual metaphors.

Contemporary reflections on the philosophy of …, 2000

The Analogical Mind