A three-level model of metaphor for specialized communication

Argument: Biannual Philosophical Journal, 2021

The paper analyzes the cognitive functions of metaphors present in both colloquial and scientific discourse. First, presented is the history of research into linguistic metaphors, followed by a discussion of the psycholinguistic turn towards metaphors as thought schemas (George Lakoff and Mark Johnson), as well as metaphoricality embodied in gestures, images and behaviors and their socio-cultural contexts. Based on the analysis of metaphors in the natural sciences, mainly in physics (Max Black, Mary Hesse, Thomas Kuhn) as well as in psychology (Douwe Draaisma), the heuristic and methodological functions of metaphors in science are discussed. Finally, on this basis, a general model of the cognitive functions of metaphor is constructed in which, apart from the cognitive communicative functions, emphasized are also the pragmatic aspects of metaphorical thinking.

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.

SOCIETY. INTEGRATION. EDUCATION. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference, 2019

My aim is to have a closer look at the benefits of a cognitive linguistic approach to scientific discourse, its metaphorical terms and their translation. This area of research has emerged over recent decades. What role do metaphors play in science and terminology? Why do metaphors appear in scientific terms? The reasons are cognitive. My approach is based on the findings of cognitive linguistics about the significance of metaphor in thought and language, and my own translation and interpreting experience. Metaphor has been recognised as a basic technique of reasoning that is also manifest in terminology, which is an important area of meaning construction. Theoretical conclusions are drawn, applying the tenets of Cognitive Linguistics, translation theory, semantic and stylistic analyses of the empirical material, which I have chosen from my own archive of metaphorical terminology and my glossaries of simultaneous conference interpreting. Translation of metaphorical scientific termino...

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.

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.

Journal of Literary Semantics, 1999

For a long time, metaphor has been considered "äs a sort of happy extra trick with words" (Richards, 1936: 90)-a device of the poetic Imagination in which the poet coats his feelings to bestow on the language in which they are wrapped a touch of beauty or unfamiliarity. Accordingly, it has been relegated within this tradition to an ancillary function of mere embellishment. It is only in the early 1970s that its Status started to be rethought, thanks to the progress made in the fields of the philosophy of language, psychology, linguistics, stylistics, discourse analysis, and pragmatics. This period has actually witnessed a proliferation of symposia and publications such äs Black's Models and Metaphors (1962), Shibles's Metaphor. Annotated BMography and History (1971), Sacks's On Metaphor (1979), Ortony's Metaphor and Thought (1979), and Lakoff & Johnson's Metaphors We Live Bj (1980), to name only a few. The outcome of this research has been the questioning of the view of metaphor äs an achievement of the unordinary mind. Hence, it has been claimed that "to be able to produce and understand metaphorical Statements is nothing to boast about" (Black, 1979: 181), and that "children do not learn to speak metaphorically äs a kind of crowning achievement in the apprenticeship of language learning" (Cohen & Margalit, 1972: 723). It has also been claimed that metaphor is not only not a mark of excellence, but also "an incurable infirmity of the human mind" 2 to perceive reality äs it is (Bally: 1951:188). The paper is divided into sections, each studying a pair of dualities. The justification for dealing with metaphor in these terms could be found in the nature of metaphor itself which has been claimed to be "no different from any other kind of duality of meaning" (Morgan, 1979: 139), such äs ambiguity, irony, and indirect Speech acts. The first section will be devoted to dealing with the review of the massive literature about metaphor and the framework. The second section includes the pair imagnation-rationaKty, which is at the heart of metaphor making and processing. The third pair, assertion-speech act, investigates the logical Status of metaphor, and argues that metaphor cannot be approached in terms of truth claims. The fourth couple, convention-intention, seeks to draw a line between what is conventional and what is intentional in metaphor. The fifth, Speaker meaning-sentence meaning exploits the traditional distinction between literal and figurative meaning to show the continuum between the two.

This paper outlines a multi-dimensional/multi-disciplinary framework for the study of metaphor. It expands on the cognitive linguistic approach to metaphor in language and thought by adding the dimension of communication, and it expands on the predominantly linguistic and psychological approaches by adding the discipline of social science. This creates a map of the field in which nine main areas of research can be distinguished and connected to each other in precise ways. It allows for renewed attention to the deliberate use of metaphor in communication, in contrast with non-deliberate use, and asks the question whether the interaction between deliberate and non-deliberate use of metaphor in specific social domains can contribute to an explanation of the discourse career of metaphor. The suggestion is made that metaphorical models in language, thought, and communication can be classified as official, contested, implicit, and emerging, which may offer new perspectives on the interaction between social, psychological, and linguistic properties and functions of metaphor in discourse. Keywords: metaphor, language, thought, communication, linguistics, psychology, social science

This paper suggests that metaphor research can benefit from a clearer description of the field of research. Three dimensions of doing metaphor research are distinguished: metaphor can be studied as part of grammar or usage, it can be studied as part of language or thought, and it can be studied as part of sign systems or behaviour. When these three dimensions are crossed, eight distinct areas of research emerge that have their own assumptions about metaphorical meaning which have their own implications and consequences for the aims and evaluation of research. It is suggested that these distinctions will help in clarifying the validity of claims about the role of conceptual metaphor in language.