Chapter published in:
Dynamism in Metaphor and Beyond
Edited by Herbert L. Colston, Teenie Matlock and Gerard J. Steen
[Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication 9] 2022
► pp. 131–142

Extended CMT and the dynamic systems theory of metaphor

A comparison

| Eötvös Loránd University , Budapest

In the paper, I try to systematically compare what Gibbs calls the “dynamic systems view” of metaphor with what I call “extended conceptual metaphor theory.” I suggest that both views share the assumption that the totality of our experiences can contribute to metaphor production and comprehension. The two views also assume that any of the experiences can prime the use of metaphors as discourse progresses. Given such similarities, I propose that both views work well in accounting for metaphorical creativity and context-sensitivity. The most noteworthy difference between them seems to be that while extended CMT is based on the integration of conceptual metaphors on various levels of schematicity (such as image schemas, domains, frames), the dynamic systems view operates primarily on the mental space level of metaphorical conceptualization.

Keywords: dynamic systems view, extended CMT, contextual influence, “standard” conceptual metaphor theory
Article outline
  • Embodied metaphor versus discourse metaphor
  • An informal process model
  • The extended view and other theories
    • Extended CMT and the dynamic systems view
  • Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 09 September 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.9.07kov
References
Cameron, Lynne
(2008) Metaphor and talk. In R. Gibbs, ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) The discourse dynamics framework for metaphor. In Cameron, Lynne and Robert Maslen, eds., Metaphor Analysis: Research Practice in Applied Linguistics, Social Sciences and the Humanities, 77–96. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Dancigyer, Barbara and Eve Sweetser
(2014) Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre
(1983) Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework of analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 145–170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond
(2013) Metaphoric cognition as social activity: Dissolving the divide between metaphor in thought and communication. Metaphor and the Social World, 3 , 54–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017a) The embodied and discourse views of metaphor: Why these are not so different and how they can be brought closer together. In Beate Hampe (ed.), Metaphor. Embodied cognition and discourse, 319–335. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017b) Metaphor wars. Conceptual metaphors in human life. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond and Lynne Cameron
(2007) Social-cognitive dynamics of metaphor performance. Cognitive Systems Research, 9: 64–75. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán
(2015) Where metaphors come from. Reconsidering context in metaphor. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(2), 321–347. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2020) Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Mark
(2017) Conceptual metaphor in social psychology. The poetics of everyday life. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Quinn, Naomi
(1991) The cultural basis of metaphor. In J. Fernandez, ed., Beyond Metaphor. The Theory of Tropes in Anthropology, 56–93. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard
(2008) The paradox of metaphor. Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 213–241. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor – Now new and improved! Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9(1):26–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zinken, Jörg, Hellsten, Lina, and Nerlich, Brigitte
(2008) Discourse metaphors. In Roslyn M. Frank, René Dirven, Tom Ziemke, and Enrique Bernardez, eds. Body, language, and mind, Vol. II: Sociocultural situatedness, 363–385. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar