Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 8:1 (2021) ► pp.175–203

Metaphors and their semantic predictability in dyadic interaction

ORCID logo | Southwest University, China
ORCID logo | Southwest University, China
Philosophy of dialogue is primarily concerned with the relation of I to you, alternatively as the I-and-you (I ⇄ you) sphere of relation, in Martin Buber’s terminology, on the basis of primary words such as I, you, and it. It is convincingly held that the primary words do not refer to or denote or signify things but they intimate human relations. Grounded on primary words, metaphorical expressions are created to bridge over the cognition gaps encountered in the process of dyadic interaction between I and you. To interpret the spontaneously created metaphorical expressions has become intuitive responses frequenting the participants I and you in the ongoing dyadic interaction. In what way I and you collaboratively predict the meaning of metaphorical expressions is an ontological question which might be tackled from the perspective of epistemology. Therefore, it is in epistemology assumed that the semantic predictability of metaphorical expressions in any dyadic interaction can be conceptually realized by means of the four types of coherence in dialogism such as dictional coherence, emotional coherence, intentional coherence and rational coherence. The four types of coherence might be created saliently either in combination with each other or in isolation. No matter what kind of salience is identified, the I-and-you sphere of relation has at most sixteen channels for predicting the semantics of metaphor created in actual dyadic interaction.
Keywords: philosophy of dialogue, metaphor, semantic predictability, coherence
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Different views of metaphor
  • 3.The I-and-you sphere of language and the I-and-it sphere of language
  • 4.Primary words and secondary metaphor
  • 5.Reconsiderations of metaphor theories
    • 5.1A reductionist examination of Lakoff and Johnson’s conceptual metaphor theory
    • 5.2A reductionist analysis of Mark Turner’s XYZ metaphor
    • 5.3A reductionist explanation of Aristotle’s theory of metaphor
    • 5.4Summary
  • 6.The semantic predictability of metaphor in dyadic interaction
    • 6.1The dictional coherence of metaphor
    • 6.2The emotional coherence of metaphor
    • 6.3The intentional coherence of metaphor
    • 6.4The rational coherence of metaphor
    • 6.5The channels of semantic predictability
  • 7.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 8 September 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00071.du
References (40)
References
Aristotle. (2006). Poetics. Trans, by J. Sachs. Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing Puilins Co.Google Scholar
Beardsley, M. C. (1962). The metaphorical twist. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 221: 293–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Black, M. (1954). Metaphor. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 551: 273–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buber, M. (2008). I and Thou. LaVergne, TN: Hesperides Press.Google Scholar
Chibbaro, S., Rondoni, L., & Vulpiani, A. (2014). Reductionism, emergence and levels of reality: The importance of being borderline. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coddy, S. W. (1988). Meaning and intention. Journal of Pragmatics, 121: 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. (1978). What metaphors mean. Critical Inquiry, 51: 31–47. Reprinted in Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1984: 245–264.Google Scholar
Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du, S. (2012). Lines and coherence: Discourse understanding in philosophy of language (Written in Chinese). Beijing: People’s Press.Google Scholar
Frege, G., Geach, P. T., & Black, M. (1951). On concept and object. Theoria, 601: 168–180.Google Scholar
Gass, W. H. (1975). On being blue: A philosophical inquiry. Boston: David R. Godine.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1969). Utterer’s meaning and intention. The Philosophical Review, 781: 147–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H.P. (1989). Logic and conversation. Lecture 2. In Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Universitry Press, 22-40.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society. Vol. I1. Trans. by Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Hawkes, T. (2018). Metaphor. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Hills, D. (2016). Metaphor. [URL]Google Scholar
Kirby, J. T. (1997). Aristotle on metaphor. The American Journal of Philology, 1181: 517–554. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2000). Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2010). Metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2015). Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2003). Metaphors we live by (with an added Afterword). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. (2001). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martinich, A. P. (1984). A theory for metaphor. Journal of Literary Semantics, 131: 35–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nozick, R. (1993). The nature of rationality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortony, A. (1993). Metaphor, language, and thought. In A. Ortony (ed.). Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reddy, M. (1993). The conduit metaphor : A case frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 164–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, I. A. (1936). The philosophy of rhetoric. London and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schulte, J. (2009). Wittgenstein on emotion. In Gustafsson, Y. (ed.). Emotions and understanding: Wittgensteinian perspectives. New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 27–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 76–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. (1983). Reason in human affairs. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Thagard, P. (2000). Coherence in thought and action. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. (2000). Mother is the death of beauty: Mind, metaphor, criticism. Christchurch, New Zealand: Cyberedition Corporation.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 841: 327–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1980). Remarks on the philosophy of psychology. In Wright, G. H., & Nyman, H. (eds.). Translated by Luckhardt, C. G., & Aue, M. A. E. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(1998). Philosophical remarks. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2009). Philosophical investigations. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Woiwode, L. (1987). Wanting an orange. In Nadell, J., & Langan, J. (eds.). The MacMillan reader. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 72–77.Google Scholar