Part of
Figurativity and Human EcologyEdited by Alexandra Bagasheva, Bozhil Hristov and Nelly Tincheva
[Figurative Thought and Language 17] 2022
► pp. 123–148
Edited by Alexandra Bagasheva, Bozhil Hristov and Nelly Tincheva
[Figurative Thought and Language 17] 2022
► pp. 123–148
Translation validity in metaphor theories
CMT, DMT and the Motivation & Sedimentation Model
Evaluating competing metaphor theories against each other implies the need for theory-independent criteria of comparison. We propose translation validity, the closeness in which theoretical constructs and operationalizations match one another, to be such a criterion. Applying this to Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) and Deliberate Metaphor Theory (DMT) we note that the translation validity of CMT is low, given that its main constructs (“domain”, “cross-domain mappings”) lack clear operationalizations. DMT fares better with a procedure for distinguishing between deliberate and non-deliberate metaphor, but we argue that it needs improvements in clarifying and justifying its operationalizations. After summarizing the Motivation & Sedimentation Model (MSM) of metaphor, we discuss its translation validity in relation to two different studies, one on metaphors for anxiety and stress in psychotherapy discourse, and the other on pictorial and verbo-pictorial metaphors. We argue that while the operationalizations in these studies differ, they both show considerable correspondence to the constructs, and thus a high degree of translation validity. Some weaknesses nevertheless show up under scrutiny, suggesting ways to improve both the level of translation validity and the higher of level construct validity (mapping from phenomena to constructs) of the model. In this process we anticipate a degree of convergence between the DMT and MSM approaches.
Keywords: translation validity, Motivation & Sedimentation Model (MSM), CMT, DMT, anxiety, psychotherapy, (verbo)-pictorial metaphors
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Translation validity in CMT and DMT
- 3.Metaphors in the Motivation & Sedimentation Model
- 4.Case study 1: Metaphors of subjective experience in psychotherapy
- 5.Case study 2: Identifying and interpreting metaphors in Greek street art
- 6.Summary and conclusions
-
Acknowledgements -
Notes -
References
References
Cameron, L.
(2018) From
metaphor to metaphorizing: How cinematic metaphor opens up
metaphor
studies. In S. Greifenstein, D. Horst, T. Scherer, C. Schmitt, H. Kappelhoff, & C. Müller (Eds.), Cinematic
metaphor in perspective. Reflections on a transdisciplinary
framework (pp. 17–35). Berlin: de Gruyter. 
Cameron, L., Maslen, R., Todd, Z., Maule, J., Stratton, P., & Stanley, N.
(2009) The
discourse dynamics approach to metaphor and metaphor-led
discourse analysis. Metaphor
and
Symbol, 24(2), 63–89.
Clausner, T. C., & Croft, W.
(1997) Productivity
and schematicity in
metaphors. Cognitive
science, 21(3), 247–282.
Coseriu, E.
(1985) Linguistic
competence: what is it
really? The Modern Language
Review, xxv–xxxv, n.pag.
Croft, W. & Cruse, A.
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Devylder, S., & Zlatev, J.
(2020) Cutting
and Breaking Metaphors of the Self and the Motivation and
Sedimentation
Model. In A. Baicchi (Ed.), Figurative
meaning construction in thought and
language. (pp. 254–281). [Figurative
Thought and Language,
9]. Philadelphia & Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Geeraerts, D.
(1993) Vagueness’s
puzzles, polysemy’s
vagaries. Cogntive
Linguistics, 4(3), 223–272.
Gibbs, R. W.
(2017) Metaphor
wars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grady, J. E.
(1997) Foundations
of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary
scenes. Berkeley: University of California.
Greve, L.
(2018) Review
of R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (2017) Metaphor
Wars: Conceptual Metaphors in Human
Life. Metaphor and the Social
World, 8(2), 312 – 318.
Heidegger, M.
(1996) Being
and time, A translation of Sein und
Zeit (Vol. Translated
by Joan Stambough). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Husserl, E.
(1970
[1900]) Logical
Investigations.: Humanities Press.
Itkonen, E.
(2005) Analogy
as structure and process: Approaches in linguistics,
cognitive psychology and philosophy of
science. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Jensen, T. W.
(2017) Doing
metaphor. An ecological perspective on metaphoricity in
discourse. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor:
Embodied cognition &
discourse (pp. 257–276). Cambrdige: CUP.
Johnson, M.
(2010) Metaphor
and
cognition. In S. Gallagher & D. Schmicking (Eds.), Handbook
of Phenomenology and Cognitive
Sciences (pp. 401–414). Berlin: Springer.
Krathwohl, D. R.
(2009) Methods
of educational and social science research: The logic of
methods. Longgrove, IL: Waveland Press.
Krennmayr, T.
(2008) Using
dictionaries in linguistic metaphor
identification. In N.-L. Johannesson & D. C. Minugh (Eds.), Selected
Papers from the 2006 and 2007 Stockholm Metaphor
Festivals (pp. 109–127). Stockholm: Stockholm University.
Kövecses, Z.
(2021) Standard and extended conceptual metaphor theory. In Xu Wen & John R. Taylor (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 191–203). London: Routledge.
Lakoff, G.
(1993) The
contemporary theory of
metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor
and Thought, Second
Edition (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: CUP.
(2009) The
neural theory of
metaphor. Available at
SSRN 1437794.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors
we live
by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(1999) Philosophy
in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western
thought. New York: Basic books.
McGlone, M. S.
(2007) What
is the explanatory value of a conceptual
metaphor? Language &
Communication, 27(2), 109–126.
Merleau-Ponty, M.
(1962) Phenomenology
of perception (Taylor and Francis
e-Library, 2005.
ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
(1968) The
visible and the
invisible. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Moskaluk, K., Zlatev, J.; & van de Weijer, J.
(in press). “Dizziness of freedom”: Anxiety disorders and metaphorical meaning-making. Metaphor and Symbol, 37 (4),2022
Müller, C.
(2008) Metaphors
dead and alive, sleeping and waking: A dynamic
view. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pragglejaz
(2007) MIP:
A method for finding metaphorically-used words in
discourse. Metaphor and
Symbol, 22, 1–40.
Reijnierse, W. G., Burgers, C., Krennmayr, T., & Steen, G. J.
(2018) DMIP:
A method for identifying potentially deliberate metaphor in
language use. Corpus
Pragmatics, 2(2), 129–147.
Sartre, J.-P.
(1956) Being
and nothingness. New York: Gramercy Books.
Schmid, H.-J.
(2020) The
dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage,
conventionalization, and
entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Slife, B. D., Wright, C. D., & Yanchar, S. C.
(2016) Using
operational definitions in research: A best-practices
approach. The Journal of Mind
and
Behavior, 119–139.
Sokolowski, R.
(2000) Introduction
to phenomenology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sonesson, G.
(2019) Two models of metaphoricity and three dilemmas of metaphor research. Cognitive Semiotics, 12(1), 1–17.
Šorm, E., & Steen, G.
(2018) VISMIP:
Towards a method for visual metaphor
identification. In G. Steen (Ed.), Visual
Metaphor: Structure and
process (pp. 47–88). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Stampoulidis, G.
(2021) Street
artivism on Athenian walls: A cognitive semiotic analysis of
metaphor and narrative in street
art. Lund: Lund University.
Stampoulidis, G., & Bolognesi, M.
(2019) Bringing
metaphors back to the streets: A corpus-based study for the
identification and interpretation of rhetorical figures in
street art. Visual
communication, 1–35.
Stampoulidis, G., Bolognesi, M., & Zlatev, J.
(2019) A
cognitive semiotic exploration of metaphors in Greek street
art. Cognitive
Semiotics, 12(1) Special
Issue: The rhetoric of contemporary metaphor
theory edited
by Göran Sonesson and Peer F. Bundgaard (pp. 1–20). 20192008.
Steen, G.
(2011) The
contemporary theory of metaphor – now new and
improved! Review of Cognitive
Linguistics, 9(1), 26–64.
(2017) Deliberate
Metaphor Theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent
issues. Intercultural
Pragmatics, 14(1), 1–24.
Torstensson, B.
(2019) Metaphors
and their Making: Bodily, conventionally and contextually
motivated metaphors in inter- and intra-generational
conversations. (MA), Lund: Lund University.
Watt, J., & Van Den Berg, S.
(2002) Elements
of scientific theories: concepts and
definitions. Research methods
for communication
science. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 11–22.
Zlatev, J.
(2010) Phenomenology
and cognitive
linguistics. In S. Gallagher & D. Schmicking (Eds.), Handbook
of phenomenology and cognitive
science (pp. 415–443). Berlin: Springer.
(2015) Cognitive
semiotics. In P. Trifonas (Ed.), International
handbook of
semiotics (pp. 1043–1067). Springer: Dordrecht.
(2018) Meaning
making from life to language: The semiotic hierarchy and
phenomenology. Cognitive
Semiotics, 11(1), 20180001.
Zlatev, J., & Blomberg, J.
(2016) Embodied
intersubjectivity, sedimentation and non-actual motion
expressions. Nordic Journal
of
Linguistics, 39(2), 185–208.
Zlatev, J., Jacobsson, G., & Paju, L.
(2021) Desiderata
for metaphor theory, the Motivation & Sedimentation
Model and motion-emotion
metaphoremes In A. S. D. Silva (Ed.), Figurative
Language – Intersubjectivity and
Usage. (pp. 41–74). [Figurative
Thought and Language,
11]. Philadelphia & Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Zlatev, J., Zywiczynski, P., & Wacewicz, S.
(2020) Pantomime
as the original human-specific communicative
system. Journal of Language
Evolution, 1–19.