Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 19:1 (2021) ► pp.80–110

How metaphoremes emerge

Case studies of Chinese verb metaphors

| Huazhong University of Science and Technology

According to the dynamic view of metaphor, the complexities of metaphorical expressions are emergent products of language use. However, this view lacks an explicit mechanism to account for the process. This paper puts forward a model named single-scope integration network with entrenchment (SINE), and uses if-then rules in the model to explain the temporal order and regularities that the metaphoremes of a metaphor should follow in their emergence. The validity of the model is tested in the case studies of Chinese verb metaphors, which reveal four if-then rules that govern the metaphoreme emergence of Chinese verb metaphors. These if-then rules are obtained via the analysis of the occurrence order of metaphoremes by performing DepCluster, a machine learning tool for collostruction generation, over a large-scale diachronic corpus. The case studies demonstrate that the proposed model is applicable to Chinese verb metaphors.

Keywords: metaphoreme emergence, single-scope integration network with entrenchment, if-then rule
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Complexities in the dynamic view of metaphor
  • 3.Single-scope integration network with entrenchment
  • 4.Uncovering emergence regularities with SINE
    • 4.1Collostruction as metaphoreme
    • 4.2Obtaining collostructions with DepCluster
      • 4.2.1Diachronic corpus
      • 4.2.2Collostruction collection procedure
      • 4.2.3Collected collostructions
    • 4.3 if-then rules
      • 4.3.1Metaphor initialization rule
      • 4.3.2Focused structure rule
      • 4.3.3Non-focus structure rule
      • 4.3.4Source-target rule
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 April 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00077.tan
References
Allan, K.
(2009) Metaphor and metonymy: A diachronic approach. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Arnold, J. E., Kaiser, E., Kahn, J. M., & Kim, L. K.
(2013) Information structure: Linguistic, cognitive, and processing approaches. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4(4), 403–413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Black, M.
(1954) Metaphor. Paper presented at the meetings of the Aristotelian Society.
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D.
(2005) The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broccias, C.
(2013) Cognitive Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 165–185). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L.
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, L. J.
(1999a) Identifying and describing metaphor in spoken discourse data. In G. Low & L. Cameron (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (pp. 105–132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999b) Operationalising ‘metaphor’ for applied linguistic research. In G. Low & L. Cameron (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (pp. 3–28). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007a) Confrontation or complementarity?: Metaphor in language use and cognitive metaphor theory. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 5(1), 107–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007b) Patterns of metaphor use in reconciliation talk. Discourse & Society, 18(2), 197–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, L. J., & Deignan, A.
(2006) The emergence of metaphor in discourse. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 671–690. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, L. J., 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S., & Oakley, T.
(2000) Blending basics. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(3/4), 175–196.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
(2004) Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deignan, A.
(2005) Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Corpus linguistics and metaphor. In R. W. J. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 280–294). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G.
(1997) Mappings in thought and language. Cambridg & New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) Conceptual blending. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 2495–2498). Oxford: Pergamon. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Ten lectures on cognitive construction of meaning. Leiden & Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(1996) Blending as a central process of grammar. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp. 113–129). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
(1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) The way we think : Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gibbs, J. R. W.
(2010) The dynamic complexities of metaphor interpretation. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada, 261, 657–677. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Evaluating Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 528–564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) The real complexities of psycholinguistic research on metaphor. Language Sciences, 401, 45–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, J. R. W., & Cameron, L. J.
(2008) The social-cognitive dynamics of metaphor performance. Cognitive Systems Research, 9(1), 64–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, J. R. W., & Colston, H. L.
(2012) Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, J. R. W., & Santa Cruz, M. J.
(2012) Temporal unfolding of conceptual metaphoric experience. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(4), 299–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grady, J.
(2005) Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics, 371, 1595–1614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Metaphor. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 188–213). New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grady, J., Oakley, T., & Coulson, S.
(1999) Blending and metaphor. In G. Steen & R. Gibbs (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 101–124). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T.
(2013) 50-something years of work on collocations: What is or should be next …. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 137–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) 15 years of collostructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 24(3), 385–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A.
(2004) Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J. K., & Fretheim, T.
(2009) Information strucuture. In F. Brisard, J.-O. Ostman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Grammar, meaning and pragmatics (pp. 146–160). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoRetrieved from [URL]
Hilpert, M.
(2006) Distinctive collexemes and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics & Linguistic Theory, 2(2), 243–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
(2015) Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K.
(1994) Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manning, C. D., Surdeanu, M., Bauer, J., Finkel, J., Bethard, S. J., & McClosky, D.
(2014) The Stanford CoreNLP natural language processing toolkit. Paper presented at The 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations. DOI logo
Müller, C.
(2008) Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking: A dynamic view. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, C., & Schmitt, C.
(2015) Audio-visual metaphors of the financial crisis: meaning making and the flow of experience. Revista Brasileira de Lingüística Aplicada, 151, 311–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, C., & Tag, S.
(2010) The dynamics of metaphor: Foregrounding and activating metaphoricity in conversational interaction Cognitive Semiotics , 10(6), pp. 85–120). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spivey, M. J.
(2007) The continuity of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T.
(2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tang, X.
(2017) Lexeme-based collexeme analysis with DepCluster. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 13(1), 165–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tang, X., & Liu, G.
(2018) Solving contradictions in semantic prosody analysis with prosody concord. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 23(4), 437–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B.
(2002) Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trausdale, G.
(2014) Constructionalization and constructional changes. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, M. B.
(2008) Frame blending. In R. R. Favretti (Ed.), Frames, corpora, and knowledge representation (pp. 13–32). Bologna: Bononia University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D., & LaPolla, R. J.
(2002 (1997)) Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Beijing: Beijing University Press.Google Scholar