Article published in:
Metaphor in Specialist Discourse
Edited by J. Berenike Herrmann and Tony Berber Sardinha
[Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication 4] 2015
► pp. 3–14

Metaphor in specialist discourse

| Göttingen University, Germany
| São Paulo Catholic University, Brazil
This chapter introduces the overall purpose, theoretical background, and structure of this collective volume. We start with our initial motivation, advancing the empirical study of metaphor in specialist discourse. Matching our goal, depicting metaphor use across a range of specialist domains and communities of discourse, we give an overview of the individual articles. The main emphasis, however, is on sketching a model of metaphor use in specific and popularized discourse settings that serves as a framework for the volume. Specifically, we draw on the latest discourse- and cognition-oriented metaphor studies, in particular conceptual metaphor theory, which we link to genre and register studies. We propose that aspects of discourse variability are the beginning, not an afterthought, of accurate empirical metaphor studies.
Published online: 16 December 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.4.01her
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Nissi, Riikka & Kati Dlaske
2020. Empowerment as an affective-discursive technology in contemporary capitalism: insights from a play. Critical Discourse Studies 17:4 ► pp. 447 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 september 2020. 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.

References

References

Bahtia, V., Sánchez Hernández, P., & Pérez-Paredes, P.
(2011) Corpora, meta-analyses and applications. In V. Bahtia, P. Sánchez Hernández, & P. Pérez-Paredes (Eds.), Researching specialized languages (pp. 1–8). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D.
(1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994) An analytical framework for register studies. In D. Biber & E. Finegan (Eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register (pp. 31–58). New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1995) Dimensions of register variation – A sociolinguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Register as a predictor of linguistic variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(1), 9–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
(2009) Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
(1999) The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bowles, H.
(2012) Analyzing languages for specific purposes discourse. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 43–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, L.
(2003) Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Cameron, L., & Low, G.
(Eds.) (1999) Researching and applying metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, L., & Maslen, R.
(Eds.) (2010) Metaphor analysis. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Deignan, A.
(2005) Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deignan, A., Littlemore, J., & Semino, E.
(2013) Figurative language, genre and register. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dorst, A.G.
(2011) Metaphor in fiction: Language, thought and communication. Oisterwijk: Box Press Uitgeverij.Google Scholar
Eggins, S., & Martin, J.R.
(1997) Genres and registers of discourse. In T.A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as structure and process (pp. 230–256). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C.
(1994) Dialect, register, and genre: Working assumptions about conventionalization. In D. Biber & E. Finegan (Eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register (pp. 15–30). New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giles, T.D.
(2008) Motives for metaphor in scientific and technical communication. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goatly, A.
(1997) The language of metaphors. London/New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grishman, R., & Kittredge, R.
(Eds.) (1986) Analyzing language in restricted domains: Sublanguage description and processing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Grove Ditlevsen, M., & Kastberg, P.
(Eds.) (2011) Knowledge asymmetries. Fachsprache, 34(3–4).Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K.
(1978) Language as social semiotic. The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R.
(1985/1989) Language, context, and text: aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Herrmann, J.B.
(2013) Metaphor in academic discourse: Linguistic forms, conceptual structures, communicative functions and cognitive representations. Utrecht: LOT dissertation series.Google Scholar
Kaal, A.A.
(2012) Metaphor in conversation. Oisterwijk: Uitgeverij BOX Press.Google Scholar
Krennmayr, T.
(2011) Metaphor in newspapers. Utrecht: LOT dissertation series.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J.
(2012) The use of verbal and gestural metaphor in explanations of management theory. In M. White & H. Herrero (Eds.) Metaphor and mills: The use of figurative language in business and economics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Low, G., Cameron, L., Deignan, A., & Todd, Z.
(Eds.) (2010) Researching and applying metaphor in the real world. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Low, G., & Todd, Z.
(2010) Good practice in metaphor analysis: Guidelines and pitfalls. In L. Cameron & R. Maslen (Eds.), Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and the humanities (pp. 217–229). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
MacArthur, F., Oncins-Martínez, J.L., Sánchez-García, M., & Piquer-Píriz, A.M.
(Eds.) (2012) Metaphor in use: Context, culture, and communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Muschard, J.
(2007) Approaches to metaphor and analogy in the language of linguistics as a language for special purposes (LSP). Marburg: Tectum.Google Scholar
Musolff, A.
(2004) Metaphor and political discourse: Analogical reasoning and debates about Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, G.L.
(1996) On metaphoric representation. Cognition, 60, 173–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997) Reasons to doubt the present evidence for metaphoric representation. Cognition, 62, 99–108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pasma, T.
(2011) Metaphor and register variation. The personalization of Dutch news discourse. Oisterwijk: Uitgeverij BOXPress.Google Scholar
Pragglejaz group
(2007) MIP: A practical and flexible method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Richardt, S.
(2005) Metaphor in languages for specific purposes. The function of conceptual metaphor in written expert language and expert-lay communication in the domains of economics, medicine and computing. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ritchie, D.
(2003) “ARGUMENT IS WAR” – Or is it a game of chess? Multiple meanings in the analysis of implicit metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 18, 125–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Common ground in metaphor theory: Continuing the conversation. Metaphor and Symbol, 19, 233–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schulze, R., & Römer, U.
(2008) Introduction: Patterns, meaningful units and specialized discourses. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(3), 265–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Semino, E.
(2008) Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Steen, G.J.
(2007) Finding metaphor in grammar and usage: A methodological analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor – now new and improved! Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 26–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steen, G.J., Dorst, A.G., Herrmann, J.B., Kaal, A.A., & Krennmayr, T.
(2010a) Metaphor in usage. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(4). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010b) VU Amsterdam metaphor corpus. Oxford: Oxford Text Archives. Available at http://​www​.metaphorlab​.org​/metcor​/search/Google Scholar
Steen, G.J., Dorst, A.G., Kaal, A.A., Herrmann, J.B., Tina, K., & Pasma, T.
(2010c) A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swales, J.
(1990) Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2004) Research genres: Explorations and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vervaeke, J., & Kennedy, J.M.
(1996) Metaphors in language and thought: Falsification and multiple meanings. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11(4), 273–284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Conceptual metaphor and abstract thought. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(3), 213–232. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
White, M., & Herrero, H.
(Eds.) (2012) Metaphor and mills: The use of figurative language in business and economics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zanotto, M.S., Cameron, L., & Cavalcanti, M.C.
(Eds.) (2008) Confronting metaphor in use: An applied linguistic approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zinken, J., & Musolff, A.
(Eds.) (2009) Metaphor and discourse. London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar