Article published in:
MetaNet
Edited by Miriam R.L. Petruck
[Constructions and Frames 8:2] 2016
► pp. 141–165

Integrating constructional semantics and conceptual metaphor

| University of Queensland
Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) aims to represent the conceptual structure of metaphors rather than the structure of metaphoric language. The theory does not explain which aspects of metaphoric language evoke which conceptual structures, for example. However, other theories within cognitive linguistics may be better suited to this task. These theories, once integrated, should make building a unified model of both the conceptual and linguistic aspects of metaphor possible. First, constructional approaches to syntax provide an explanation of how particular constructional slots are associated with different functions in evoking metaphor. Cognitive Grammar is especially effective in this regard. Second, Frame Semantics helps explain how the words or phrases that fill the relevant constructional slots evoke the source and target domains of metaphor. Though these theories do not yet integrate seamlessly, their combination already offers explanatory benefits, such as allowing generalizations across metaphoric and non-metaphoric language, and identifying the words that play a role in evoking metaphors, for example.
Keywords: Construction Grammar, Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Invariance Principle, Frame Semantics, Cognitive Grammar
Published online: 06 April 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.8.2.02sul
References
Boas, H
(2010) The syntax-lexicon continuum in construction grammar: A case study of English communication verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 241, 58–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brooke–Rose, C
(1958) A grammar of metaphor. London: Secker and Warburg Ltd.Google Scholar
Cameron, L
(2003) Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Croft, W
(2003) The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 161–206). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D.A
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deignan, A
(2005) Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, T
(1984) Towards an integrated theory of adverb position in English. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
(2001) The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C.J
(1982) Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.Google Scholar
FrameNet
(2015) FrameNet Release 1.6. Freely available as a download from the FrameNet project. Updated data available at https://​framenet​.icsi​.berkeley​.edu​/fndrupal​/home (accessed July 2015).
Gibbs, R.W. Jr., & Tendahl, M
(2006) Cognitive effort and effects in metaphor comprehension: Relevance theory and psycholinguistics. Mind and Language, 21(3), 379–403. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. Basic books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. I1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. II1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2002) Concept, image and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pragglejaz Group
(2007) MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J
(1998) On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 301, 259–274. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M.R.L., Johnson, C.R., & Scheffczyk, J
(2016) FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice (“The Book”). Web publication available via http://​framenet​.icsi​.berkeley​.edu.
Steen, G., Dorst, A.G., Kaal, A., Herrmann, J.B., & Krennmayr, T
(2010) A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K
(2009) Grammatical constructions in metaphoric language. In B. Lewandowska–Tomaszczyk & K. Dziwirek (Eds.), Cognitive corpus linguistics (pp. 57–80). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2013) Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J.R
(1989) Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, M
(1987) Death is the mother of beauty: Mind, metaphor, criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1991) Reading minds: The study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Colston, Herbert L.
2019.  In How Language Makes Meaning, Crossref logo
DAVID, OANA & TEENIE MATLOCK
2018. Cross-linguistic automated detection of metaphors for poverty and cancer. Language and Cognition 10:3 ► pp. 467 ff. Crossref logo
Kövecses, Zoltán
2020.  In Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Crossref logo
Lederer, Jenny
2019. Lexico-grammatical alignment in metaphor construal. Cognitive Linguistics 30:1 ► pp. 165 ff. Crossref logo
Liu, Xiaoyu, Shi, Heidi H. & Zhuo, Jing-Schmidt
2020.  In Corpus-Based Research on Chinese Language and Linguistics [Sinica venetiana , 6], Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 08 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.