Article published in:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 16:2 (2018) ► pp. 431–454

On metaphorical views, dynamite, and doodlings

Functions of domain adjectives in metaphorical domain constructions

| Radboud University Nijmegen
| Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
| Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
| University of Amsterdam
This paper offers a systematic, bottom-up, investigation of the role of adjectives as metaphor signals in metaphorical domain constructions (MDCs) such as ‘budgetary anorexia’ and ‘economic crash’ within the framework of Deliberate Metaphor Theory (e.g., Steen, 2017). To this end, we analyse all MDCs in the VU Amsterdam Metaphor Corpus. Results of our analyses demonstrate that domain adjectives in MDCs do not by definition constitute signals of metaphor, and that not all nouns in MDCs are identified as potentially deliberate metaphors. We identify three different functions of domain adjectives: (1) signal of novel metaphor; (2) signal of conventional metaphor; (3) non-signal. The analyses in this paper provide new insights into both the role of domain adjectives in MDCs, and the position of MDCs as a typical manifestation of potentially deliberate metaphor.
Keywords: metaphorical domain constructions, metaphor signalling, deliberate metaphor, domain adjectives, discourse
Published online: 05 November 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00017.rei
References

References

Beger, A.
(2011) Deliberate metaphors?: An exploration of the choice and functions of metaphors in US-American College lectures. Metaphorik.de, 20, 39–60.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
(1999) The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cameron, L.
(1999) Operationalising ‘metaphor’ for applied linguistic research. In L. Cameron & G. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (pp. 3–28). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Crisp, P., Heywood, J., & Steen, G. J.
(2002) Metaphor identification and analysis, classification and quantification. Language and Literature, 11(1), 55–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dorst, A. G., & Reijnierse, W. G.
(2015) A dictionary gives definitions, not decisions: On using a dictionary to identify the basic senses of words. Metaphor and the Social World, 5(1), 137–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 452 ]
Ernst, T.
(1981) Grist for the linguistic mill: Idioms and “extra” adjectives. Journal of Linguistic Research, 1(3), 51–68.Google Scholar
(2001) The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.
(2015a) Do pragmatic signals affect conventional metaphor understanding?: A failed test of deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 77–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015b) Does deliberate metaphor theory have a future? Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 73–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goatly, A.
(1997) The language of metaphors. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, P.
(2004) The syntagmatics of metaphor and idiom. International Journal of Lexicography, 17(3), 245–274. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hertzberger, R.
(2013) Economen hebben geen flauw benul [Economists haven’t got a clue]. NRC Handelsblad, March 2. Retrieved from: http://​www​.nrc​.nl​/nieuws​/2013​/03​/02​/economen​-hebben​-geen​-flauw​-benul​-12624625​-a728936.
Krennmayr, T.
(2011) Metaphors in newspapers. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G.
(1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langlotz, A.
(2006) Idiomatic creativity: A cognitive-linguistic model of idiom-representation and idiom-variation in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Macmillan English Dictionary Online
. July 2016 http://​www​.macmillandictionary​.com/
Moshinsky, B.
(2016) Get ready for an economic crash if Britain leaves the EU. Business Insider UK, May 23. Retrieved from: http://​uk​.businessinsider​.com​/uk​-treasury​-report​-on​-brexit​-2016​-5.
Musolff, A.
(2004) Metaphor and political discourse: Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nacey, S.
(2013) Metaphors in learner English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pasma, T.
(2011) Metaphor and register variation: The personalisation of Dutch news discourse. Oisterwijk: Box Press.Google Scholar
Perrez, J., & Reuchamps, M.
(2014) Deliberate metaphors in political discourse: The case of citizen discourse. Metaphorik.de, 25, 7–41.Google Scholar
Pragglejaz Group
(2007) MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Semino, E.
(2008) Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Semino, E., Heywood, J., & Short, M.
(2004) Methodological problems in the analysis of metaphors in a corpus of conversations about cancer. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1271–1294. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steen, G. J.
(2007) Finding metaphor in grammar and usage: A methodological analysis of theory and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 453 ]
(2008) The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 213–241. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011a) From three dimensions to five steps: The value of deliberate metaphor. Metaphorik.de, 21, 83–110.Google Scholar
(2011b) The contemporary theory of metaphor: Now new and improved! Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 26–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Developing, testing and interpreting deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 67–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Mixed metaphor is a question of deliberateness. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), Mixing metaphor (pp. 113–132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2017) Deliberate Metaphor Theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues. Intercultural Pragmatics 14(1), 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T.
(2010) A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K.
(2013) Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E.
(1999) Compositionality and blending: Semantic composition in a cognitively realistic framework. In T. Janssen & G. Redeker (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope and methodology (pp. 129–162). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thibodeau, P. H.
(2017) The function of metaphor framing, deliberate or otherwise, in a social world. Metaphor and the Social World, 7(2), 270–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M.
(1991) Reading minds: The study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 454 ]
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Reijnierse, W. Gudrun, Christian Burgers, Marianna Bolognesi & Tina Krennmayr
2019. How Polysemy Affects Concreteness Ratings: The Case of Metaphor. Cognitive Science 43:8 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 january 2021. 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.