Article published In:
MetaNetEdited by Miriam R.L. Petruck
[Constructions and Frames 8:2] 2016
► pp. 141–165
Edited by Miriam R.L. Petruck
[Constructions and Frames 8:2] 2016
► pp. 141–165
Integrating constructional semantics and conceptual metaphor
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.
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. 
Brooke–Rose, C
(1958) A grammar of metaphor. London: Secker and Warburg Ltd.
Cameron, L
(2003) Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum.
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.
Croft, W., & Cruse, D.A
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deignan, A
Ernst, T
(1984) Towards an integrated theory of adverb position in English. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
(2001) The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
FrameNet
(2015) FrameNet Release 1.6. Freely available as a download from the FrameNet project. Updated data available at [URL] (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.
Goldberg, A.E
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. Basic books.
Langacker, R.W
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. I1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
(1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. II1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
(2002) Concept, image and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pragglejaz Group
(2007) MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J
(1998) On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 301, 259–274.
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M.R.L., Johnson, C.R., & Scheffczyk, J
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.
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.
Taylor, J.R
(1989) Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Turner, M
(1987) Death is the mother of beauty: Mind, metaphor, criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(1991) Reading minds: The study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Cited by
Cited by 9 other publications
Colston, Herbert L.
2019. How Language Makes Meaning, 
Dalpanagioti, Thomai
2021. A Frame-Inspired Task-Based Approach to Metaphor Teaching. Lexis :18
DAVID, OANA & TEENIE MATLOCK
2018. Cross-linguistic automated detection of metaphors for poverty and cancer. Language and Cognition 10:3 ► pp. 467 ff.
Engelberg, Stefan
2022. Musterhafte Strukturen im Bereich von Metaphern und Metonymien. In Cognition and Contrast, ► pp. 47 ff.
Kövecses, Zoltán
2020. Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory,
Law, James
2022. Metonymy and argument alternations in French communication frames. Cognitive Linguistics 33:2 ► pp. 387 ff.
Lederer, Jenny
2019. Lexico-grammatical alignment in metaphor construal. Cognitive Linguistics 30:1 ► pp. 165 ff.
Liu, Xiaoyu, Shi, Heidi H. & Zhuo, Jing-Schmidt
2020. Manual Action Metaphors in Chinese A Usage-Based Constructionist Study. In Corpus-Based Research on Chinese Language and Linguistics [Sinica venetiana, 6],
Sullivan, Karen
2023. Three levels of framing. WIREs Cognitive Science 14:5
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 march 2024. 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.