Cover not available
Article published In:
MetaNet
Edited by Miriam R.L. Petruck
[Constructions and Frames 8:2] 2016
► pp. 214–255

Cascades in metaphor and grammar

A case study of metaphors in the gun debate

 | University of California, Merced
 | University of California, Berkeley
 | Stanford University
Public discourse on highly charged, complex social and political issues is extensive, with millions of sentences available for analysis. It is also rife with metaphors that manifest vast numbers of novel metaphoric expressions. More and more, to understand such issues, to see who is saying what and why, we require big data and statistically-based analysis of such corpora. However, statistically-based data processing alone cannot do all the work. The MetaNet (MN) project has developed an analysis method that formalizes existing insights about the conceptual metaphors underlying linguistic expressions into a computationally tractable mechanism for automatically discovering new metaphoric expressions in texts. The ontology used for this computational method is organized in terms of metaphor cascades, i.e. pre-existing packages of hierarchically organized primary and general metaphors that occur together. The current paper describes the architecture of metaphor-to-metaphor relations built into this system. MN’s methodology represents a proof of concept for a novel way of performing metaphor analysis. It does so by applying the method to one particular domain of social interest, namely the gun debate in American political discourse. Though well aware that such an approach cannot replace a thorough cognitive, sociological, and political analysis, this paper offers examples that show how a cascade theory of metaphor and grammar helps automated data analysis in many ways.
Keywords: metaphor, cascades, the gun debate, Embodied Construction Grammar, construction grammar, computational linguistics, metaphor identification, rights metaphors
Published online: 6 April 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.8.2.04dav
References (39)
References
Bergen, B., & Chang, N. (2000). Spatial schematicity of prepositions in neural grammar. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Berkeley and International Computer Science Institute.Google Scholar
. (2005). Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J.O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 147–190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clausner, T.C., & Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 101, 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(4), 335–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dodge, E. (2010). Conceptual and constructional composition. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Dodge, E., Hong, J., & Stickles, E. (2015). MetaNet: Deep semantic automatic metaphor analysis. Proceedings of the third workshop on metaphor in NLP , Denver, Colorado, 40–49. DOI logo
Dodge, E., & Lakoff, G. (2005). Image schemas: From linguistic analysis to neural grounding. In Beate Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 57–91). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Downs, D. (2002). Representing gun owners: Frame identification as social responsibility in news media discourse. Written Communication, 19(1), 44–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C.J. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. In S.R. Harnad, H.D. Steklis, & J. Lancaster (Eds.), Origins and evolution of language and speech (pp. 20–32). New York: Annals of the NY Academy of Sciences, Vol. 2801.Google Scholar
. (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Feldman, J.A. (2006). From molecule to metaphor. A neural theory of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feldman, J.A., Dodge, E.K., & Bryant, J. (2009). A neural theory of language and embodied construction grammar. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 111–138). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3-4), 455–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Golberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grady, J.E. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. PhD thesis, University of California Berkeley.Google Scholar
Hampe, B., & Grady, J.E. (Eds.). (2005). From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (Cognitive Linguistics Research 29). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. (1984). Word grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
. (2007). Language networks: The new word grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M., & Lakoff, G. (2002). Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(3), 245–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 39–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1996). The metaphor system for morality. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language. Stanford: CSLIGoogle Scholar
. (2008a). The neural theory of metaphor. In R.W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 17–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008b). The political mind: Why you can’t understand 21st-century politics with an 18th-century brain. Viking Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1, theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. (2002). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Narayanan, S.S. (1997). KARMA: Knowledge-based action representations for metaphor and aspect. Ph. D. thesis, University of California Berkeley.Google Scholar
Panther, K.U., Thornburg, L.L., & Barcelona, A. (Eds.). (2009). Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J.K., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M.R.L., Johnson, C.R., Baker, C.F., & Scheffczyk, J. (2016). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Berkeley, CA: International Computer Science Institute.Google Scholar
Stickles, E., David, O., & Sweetser, E. (2014). Grammatical constructions, frame structure, and metonymy: Their contributions to metaphor computation. High Desert Linguistics Society, 111, 317–345.Google Scholar
Steels, L. (Ed.). (2011). Design patterns in fluid construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K.S. (2007). Grammar in metaphor: A construction grammar account of metaphoric language. PhD dissertation, University of California Berkeley.Google Scholar
. (2013). Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (21)

Cited by 21 other publications

Belkhir, Sadia
2024. Introduction. In Proverbs within Cognitive Linguistics [Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts, 16], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Luri, Ignacio, Hope Jensen Schau & Bikram Ghosh
2024. Metaphor-Enabled Marketplace Sentiment Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 61:3 ► pp. 496 ff. DOI logo
Brdar-Szabó, Rita & Mario Brdar
2023. Cultural models mediating between visual sensation and semiotic systems, exemplified on visual, alpha-pictorial and verbal-gestural communication. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 10:2 ► pp. 367 ff. DOI logo
Yuan, Guorong & Yi Sun
2023. A bibliometric study of metaphor research and its implications (2010–2020). Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 41:3 ► pp. 227 ff. DOI logo
Young, Jake
2022. How food fueled language, Part II: language genres, songs in the head, and the coevolution of cooking and language. Time and Mind 15:2 ► pp. 213 ff. DOI logo
Bredikhin, Sergey, Vladislav Babayants, Iuliia Pelevina, D. Rudoy, A. Olshevskaya & N. Ugrekhelidze
2021. A comprehensive cognitive-perceptual model of analysis for contextually determined components of a conceptualized term. E3S Web of Conferences 273 ► pp. 11038 ff. DOI logo
Brdar, Mario, Rita Brdar-Szabó & Benedikt Perak
2020. Separating (non-)figurative weeds from wheat. In Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language [Figurative Thought and Language, 9], ► pp. 46 ff. DOI logo
Huang, Jie
2020. Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Metaphor and Symbol 35:4 ► pp. 302 ff. DOI logo
Huang, Jie
2023. The moral metaphor system: a conceptual metaphor approach. Social Semiotics ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Kövecses, Zoltán
2020. Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory, DOI logo
Kövecses, Zoltán
2020. An extended view of conceptual metaphor theory. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 18:1 ► pp. 112 ff. DOI logo
Kövecses, Zoltán
2024. Chapter 1. Proverbs in Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory. In Proverbs within Cognitive Linguistics [Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts, 16], ► pp. 26 ff. DOI logo
Skrynnikova, Inna V.
2020. Analogical reasoning in uncovering the meaning of digital-technology terms: the case of backdoor. Journal of Computer-Assisted Linguistic Research 4:1 ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
Bolognesi, Marianna & Kristina Š. Despot
2019. Fantastic metaphors and where to find them. In Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age [Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication, 8], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Hewett, Beth L. & Terese Thonus
2019. Online Metaphorical Feedback and Students’ Textual Revisions: An Embodied Cognitive Experience. Computers and Composition 54 ► pp. 102512 ff. DOI logo
Lederer, Jenny
2019. Lexico-grammatical alignment in metaphor construal. Cognitive Linguistics 30:1 ► pp. 165 ff. DOI logo
Majdik, Zoltan P.
2019. A Computational Approach to Assessing Rhetorical Effectiveness: Agentic Framing of Climate Change in the Congressional Record, 1994–2016. Technical Communication Quarterly 28:3 ► pp. 207 ff. DOI logo
Sweetser, Eve, Oana David & Elise Stickles
2019. Chapter 1. MetaNet. In Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age [Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication, 8], ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
DAVID, OANA & TEENIE MATLOCK
2018. Cross-linguistic automated detection of metaphors for poverty and cancer. Language and Cognition 10:3 ► pp. 467 ff. DOI logo
Lopez-Gonzalez, Hibai, Frederic Guerrero-Solé, Ana Estévez & Mark Griffiths
2018. Betting is Loving and Bettors are Predators: A Conceptual Metaphor Approach to Online Sports Betting Advertising. Journal of Gambling Studies 34:3 ► pp. 709 ff. DOI logo
Welch, Vicki
2018. Talking Back to ‘Family’, ‘Family Troubles’, and ‘the Looked-after Child’. Sociological Research Online 23:1 ► pp. 197 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 november 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.