Cover not available
Article published In:
Perception, Culture and Language
Edited by Judit Baranyiné Kóczy and Rita Brdar-Szabó
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies 10:2] 2023
► pp. 398–421

Metaphors from perception and culture

The case of solidity

ORCID logo | The Pennsylvania State University
Applying conceptual metaphor theory, this study aims to discuss how metaphors emerge from the interaction between perceptual experience and cultural environment, comparing English and Chinese. The kind of metaphors under study is rooted in the object image schema, particularly in its dimension in solidity with bipolar values as hard and soft. Specifically, these are primary metaphors grounded in experiential correlations in manipulating physical objects that are hard or soft. It is argued that the similarities and differences between English and Chinese in such metaphorical mappings can be accounted for by four main meaning focuses consisting in four pairs of parametric variables: more or less effort, more or less impact, more or less strength, and more or less flexibility. These parametric variables determine metaphorical mapping pathways from hard and soft as source concepts to some abstract target concepts.
Keywords: primary metaphor, object image schema, tactile experience, solidity, hard and soft, main meaning focus
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Relevant preceding studies
  • 3.A comparative study between English and Chinese
    • 3.1The English data in COCA
    • 3.2The Chinese data in BCC
    • 3.3The English and Chinese data in comparison
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 17 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00106.yu
References (27)
References
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2017). Metaphor wars: Conceptual metaphors in human life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grady, J. E. (1997a). Foundation of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Ph.D. dissertation. Berkeley: University of California.
(1997b). Theories are Buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8 (4), 267–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grady, J. E., & Ascoli, G. A. (2017). Sources and targets in primary metaphor theory: Looking back and thinking ahead. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse (pp. 27–45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013). The metaphor-metonymy relationship: Correlation metaphors are based on metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol, 28 (2), 75–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 28 (2), 321–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Maalej, Z., & Yu, N. (2011). Introduction: Embodiment via body parts. In Z. Maalej & N. Yu (Eds.), Embodiment via body parts: Studies from various languages and cultures (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharifian, F., Dirven, R., Yu, N., & Niemeier, S. (2008). Culture and language: Looking for the “mind” inside the body. In F. Sharifian, R. Dirven, N. Yu & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Culture, body, and language: Conceptualizations of internal body organs across cultures and languages (pp. 3–23). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. M. (1976). Synaesthetic adjectives: A possible law of semantic change. Language, 52 (2), 461–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winter, B., & Matlock, T. (2017). Primary metaphors are both cultural and embodied. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse (pp. 99–115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yu, N. (1998). The contemporary theory of metaphor: A perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Synesthetic metaphor: A cognitive perspective. Journal of Literary Semantics, 32 (1), 19–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). The eyes for sight and mind. Journal of Pragmatics, 36 (4), 663–686. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Metaphor from body and culture. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 247–261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). The body in anatomy: Looking at “head” for the mind-body link in Chinese. In R. Caballero & J. E. Díaz Vera (Eds.), Sensuous cognition: Explorations into human sentience: Imagination, (e)motion and perception (pp. 53–74). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Embodiment, culture, and language. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 227–239). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2022). The moral metaphor system: A conceptual metaphor approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yu, N., & Huang, J. (2019). Primary metaphors across languages: Difficulty as weight and solidity. Metaphor and Symbol, 34 (2), 111–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yu, N., Yu, L., & Lee, Y. C. (2017). Primary metaphors: Importance as size and weight in a comparative perspective. Metaphor and Symbol, 32 (4), 231–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhao, Q., Ahrens, K., & Huang, C.-R. (2022). Linguistic synesthesia is metaphorical: A lexical-conceptual account. Cognitive Linguistics, 33 (3), 553–583. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Navarro i Ferrando, Ignasi & Montserrat Esbrí-Blasco
2024. Frames and semantic roles in metaphorical mappings. Review of Cognitive Linguistics DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 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.