Important challenges in the study of metaphors
The world of metaphor scholarship is amazingly diverse, involving a myriad of empirical methods and theoretical frameworks. This diversity is greatly appealing, given the enormous complexity of metaphorical thinking, language, and human action. This chapter identifies some challenges for metaphor scholars both in doing particular empirical work and in offering theoretical accounts of metaphor and its role in human life. These challenges focus on issues with metaphor identification, the meanings of metaphor in discourse, online metaphor processing, and the metaphorical character of source domains. I see these challenges as “matters for all of us to think about” as we try to explain both the regularities and variations in metaphorical thinking, language, and multimodal action.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Identifying metaphors: The view from nowhere?
- 3.What meanings do people understand when they understand metaphor?
- 4.Online, incremental metaphor processing
- 5.The metaphorical essence of source domains
- 6.Conclusion
-
References
References (36)
References
Burgers, C., Brugman, B., Renardel de Lavalette, K., & Steen, G. (2016). HIP: A method for linguistic hyperbole identification in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 31, 163–178.
Cardillo, E., Schmidt, G., Kranjec, A., & Chatterjee, A. (2010). Stimulus design is an obstacle course: 560 matched literal and metaphorical sentences for testing neural hypotheses about metaphor. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 651–664.
Chiang, A., & Chiang, W-y. (2016). Behold, I am coming soon! A study of the conceptualization of sexual orgasm in 27 languages. Metaphor and Symbol, 31, 131–147.
Colston, H. L. (2015). Using figurative language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Csordas, Th. J. (Ed.) (1994). Embodiment and experience: The existential ground of culture and self. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dąbrowska, E. (2013). Functional constraints, usage, and mental grammars: A study of speakers’ intuitions about questions with long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Linguistics, 24, 633–665.
Divjak, D., Dąbrowska, E., & Arppe, A. (2016) Machine meets man: Evaluating the psychological reality of corpus-based probabilistic models. Cognitive Linguistics, 27, 1–33.
Duffy, S. (2014). The role of cultural artifacts in the interpretation of metaphorical expressions about time. Metaphor and Symbol, 29, 94–112.
Duffy, S. & Feist, M. (2014). Individual differences in the interpretation of ambiguous statements about time. Cognitive Linguistics, 25, 29–54.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Gibbs, R. (1980). Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation. Memory & Cognition, 8, 149–156.
Gibbs, R. (1986). Skating on thin ice: Literal meaning and understanding idioms in conversation. Discourse Processes, 7, 17–30.
Gibbs, R. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. (2011). The allegorical impulse. Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 121–130.
Gibbs, R. (2013a). Walking the walk while thinking about the talk: Embodied interpretation of metaphorical narratives. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 363–378.
Gibbs, R. (2017). Metaphor wars: Conceptual metaphor in human life. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R., & Cameron, L. (2007). Social-cognitive dynamics of metaphor performance. Cognitive Systems Research, 9, 64–75.
Gibbs, R., & Colston, H. (2012). Interpreting figurative meaning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R., & Santa Cruz, M. (2012). Temporal unfolding of conceptual metaphoric experience. Metaphor and Symbol, 27, 299–311.
Gibbs, R., Tendahl, M., & Okonski, L. (2011). Inferring pragmatic messages from metaphor. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 7, 3–28.
Kok, K., & Cienki, A. (2017). Taking simulation semantics out of the laboratory: Towards an interactive and multimodal reappraisal of embodied language comprehension. Language & Cognition, 7, 1–23.
Okonski, L., & Gibbs, R. (2019). Diving into the wreck: Can people resist allegorical meaning? Journal of Pragmatics, 141, 28–43.
Pragglejaz Group (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically-used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22, 1–40.
Reijnierse, G., Burgers, C., Krennmayr, T., & Steen, G. (2018). DMIP: A method for identifying potentially deliberate metaphor in language use. Corpus Pragmatics, 2, 129–147.
Schiffman, H. (2011). Sensation and perception: An integrative approach. New York: Wiley.
Semino, E. (2010). Descriptions of pain, metaphor, and embodied simulation. Metaphor and Symbol, 25, 205–226.
Shapiro, J., & D’Espisito, M. (2016). The segregation and integration of distinct brain networks and their relations to cognition. Journal of Neuroscience, 36, 12083–12094.
Steen, G. (2008). The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23, 213–241.
Steen, G., Dorst, A., Herrmann, J., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification. From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stefanowitsch, A. (2011). Constructional preemption by contextual mismatch: A corpus-linguistic investigation. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(1), 107–129.
Tendahl, M., & Gibbs, R. (2008). Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(11), 1823–1864.
Thibodeau, P., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS ONE, 6(2), e16782.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
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.