Cover not available
Part of
Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language
Edited by Annalisa Baicchi
[Figurative Thought and Language 9] 2020
► pp. 71–88

A multi-level view of metaphor and some of its advantages

| Eötvös Loránd University
This chapter focuses on the way in which we think about our conceptual system and puts forward a number of questions related to its essential structures in terms of their schematicity. It is proposed that image schemas, domains, frames and mental spaces are interconnected in metaphorical conceptualization. A detailed analysis of the source domain of building is carried out in order to pin down the kind of distinctions that we may postulate regarding its operation with a view to depicting the functioning of the system. The multi-layered view of metaphor is advanced, which can accommodate many aspects of metaphor and account for a number of metaphor-related phenomena in a unified manner.
Keywords: conceptual metaphors, domain, image schema, frame, mental space
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.What are the appropriate conceptual structures in CMT? Image schemas, domains, frames, or mental spaces?
  • 3.Should conceptual metaphors be formulated at a schematic or specific level?
  • 4.Which source domain items are mapped onto the target?
  • 5.Do the mappings always go from source to target?
  • 6.Are there any “isolated” metaphors?
  • 7.Summary and discussion
  • 8.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 12 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.9.03kov
References (26)
References
Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casasanto, D. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 138 (3), 351–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clausner, T. & Croft, W. (1997). Productivity and schematicity in metaphors. Cognitive Science, 21(3), 247–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B. & Sweetser, E. (2014). Figurative Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deignan, A. (1995). Collins Cobuild English Guides 7: Metaphor. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental spaces. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. (2012). Interpreting metaphor. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grady, J. (1997). THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 267–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2000). The scope of metaphor. In A. Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 79–92). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2010). Metaphor. A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005). Metaphor in culture. Universality and variation. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015a). Where metaphors come from. Reconsidering context in metaphor. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015b). Surprise as a conceptual category. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13: 2, 270–290. 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: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1991). The invariance hypothesis. Is abstract reason based on image schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 39–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Musolff, A. (2001). Political imagery of Europe: A house without exit doors? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21(3), 216–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Metaphor scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 21(1), 23–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. & Galera Masegosa, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (1998). On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 259–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar