Cover not available
Article published In:
Living Metaphors and Metonymies
Edited by Mario Brdar and Rita Brdar-Szabó
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1] 2022
► pp. 7–32

Metaphorical experience

Contiguity or cross-domain mappings?

This article examines whether metaphorical experiences are better characterized in terms of contiguity or cross-domain mappings. My claim is that many facets of concrete experience are infused with metaphoricity as part of our ordinary understanding of these events. Many source domains in conceptual metaphors may also be interpreted via different metaphorical ideas. If both source and target domains in metaphorical concepts may be characterized in metaphorical terms, then the relationship between them may be related via contiguity or metonymy rather than cross-domain mappings. For this reason, metaphorical concepts and language may originate in the contiguous, and at times almost isomorphic, relationships between concrete actions and larger metaphorical ideas.
Keywords: contiguity, cross-domain mapping, embodiment, metaphor, metonymy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Distinguishing between metaphor and metonymy
  • 3.Are metaphorical source domains non-metaphorical?
  • 4.Contiguity in experience leads to metaphorical meanings
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 May 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00099.gib
References (64)
References
Barcelona, A. (Ed.) (2000a). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2000b). On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 31–58). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2002). Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 207–277). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnden, J. (2010). Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 211, 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. (1993). Flexibility, structure, and linguistic vagary in concepts: Manifestations of a compositional system of perceptual symbols. In A. Collins, S. Gathercole, M. Conway & P. Morris (Eds.), Theories of memory (pp. 29–101). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Black, M. (1993). More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd edition) (pp. 19–41). New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolognesi, M., & Vernillo, P. (2019). How abstract concepts emerge from metaphorical images: The metonymic way. Language and Communication, 691, 26–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borghi, A., & Binkofski, F. (2014). Words as social tools: An embodied view on abstract concepts. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bortfeld, H., & McGlone, M. (2001). The continuum of metaphor processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 161, 75–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M. (2015). Metonymic chains and synonymy. Fluminensia, 271, 83–101.Google Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R., & Brdar, M. (2011). What do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of metonymy? In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 217–248). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2002). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 161–205). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, E. (1995). The concept of domain in the cognitive theory of metaphor. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 181, 111–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2008). Rethinking metaphor. In R. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 53–66). New York: Cambridge University Pres. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forceville, C. (2009). Metonymy in visual and audiovisual discourse. In Ei. Ventola & A. Guijarro (Eds.), The world told and the world shown: Issues in multisemiotics (pp. 56–74). Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. (2008). Metaphor as structure-mapping. In R. Gibbs (Ed.) The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 109–128). New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghio, M., Vaghi, M., & Tettamanti, M. (2013). Fine-grained semantic categorization across the abstract and concrete domains. PLoS ONE, 81, e67090. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1999). Taking metaphor out of ours heads and into the cultural world. In R. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics. (pp. 145–166). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2015). The allegorical character of political metaphors in discourse. Metaphor and the Social World, 51, 264–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Metaphor wars: Conceptual metaphors in human life. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Metaphor and dynamical systems. In E. Semino & Z. Demjén (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language. (pp. 56–69). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R., & Boers, E. (2005). Metaphoric processing of allegorical poetry. In Z. Maalej (Ed.), Metaphor and culture (pp. 44–61). Tunis: University of Manouba Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R., & Ferreira, L. (2011). Do people infer the entailments of conceptual metaphors during verbal metaphor understanding? In M. Brdar, S. Gries & M. Fuchs (Eds.) Convergence and expansion (pp. 221–236). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S. (2008). How metaphors create categories – quickly. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 67–83). New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 323–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2005). Chained metonymies. In J. Newman & S. Rice (Eds.): Experimental and empirical methods (pp. 181–194). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, D., & Sander, E. (2013). Surfaces and essences: Analogy as the fuel and fire of thinking. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (2002). The metaphoric and metonymic poles. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 41–47). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johansson Falck, M., & Gibbs, R. (2012). Embodied motivations for metaphoric meanings. Cognitive Linguistics, 231, 251–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd editon). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013). The metaphor–metonymy relationship: Correlation metaphors are based on metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol, 281, 75–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Extended conceptual metaphor theory. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). New York: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lindquist, K., & Barrett, L. (2012). A functional architecture of the human brain: Emerging insights from the science of emotion. Trends in Cognitive Science, 161, 533–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Markman, A. (2013). Knowledge representation (2nd edition). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mittelberg, I. (2019). Visuo-kinetic signs are inherently metonymic: How embodied metonymy motivates forms, functions, and schematic patterns in gesture. Frontiers in Psychology, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mittelberg, I., & Waugh, L. (2009). Metonymy first, metaphor second: A cognitive-semiotic approach to multimodal figures of thought in co-speech gesture. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 329–356). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Munday, I., Newton-John, T., & Kneebone, I. (2020). ‘Barbed wire wrapped around my feet’: Metaphor use in chronic pain. British Journal of Health Psychology, 251, 814–830. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. (2001). Serial metonymy: A study of reference-based polysemisation. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2 1, 245–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Okonski, L., & Gibbs, R. (2019). Diving into the wreck: Can people resist allegorical meaning? Journal of Pragmatics, 1411, 28–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K-U. (2006). Metonymy as a usage event. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 147–185). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (Eds.). (2003). Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D. (2006). Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 171, 269–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perez-Sobrino, P. (2017). Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G. (2002). How metonymic are metaphors? In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 407–434). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K-U. Panther & G. Radden, (Eds). Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riemer, N. (2001). Remetonomyzing metaphor: Hypercategories in semantic extension. Cognitive Linguistics 12 1, 379–401.Google Scholar
Rockridge Press (2007). The ultimate fast metabolism diet cookbook. Berkeley, CA: Rockridge Press.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (1998). On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 301, 259–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: From basicity to complexity. In B. Hampe (Ed.) Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse (pp. 138–159). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Díez V., O. (2002). Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 501–546). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera-Masegosa, A. (2011). Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value, 31, 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semino, E. (2010). Descriptions of pain, metaphor, and embodied simulation. Metaphor and Symbol, 251, 205–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spoel, P., Harris, R., & Henwood, F. (2012). The moralization of healthy living: Burke’s rhetoric of rebirth and older adults’ accounts of healthy eating. Health, 161, 619–635. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thibodeau, P., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS ONE, 6 1: e16782. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vesalius, A. (2003). The fabric of the human body: An annotated translation of the 1543 and 1555 editions of “De Humani Corporis Fabrica Libri Septem”, D. Garrison & M. Hast (Eds.), Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Warren, B. (2002). An alternative account of the interpretation of referential metonymy and metaphor. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 113–130). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Colston, Herbert L. & Carina Rasse
2024. Super Figures: Poetry, Picture Poetry, and Art in the Service of Human Connection. Metaphor and Symbol 39:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Dundon, John Terry
2024. “I think Gray is just against you there”: Intertextuality and personification in legal discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 232 ► pp. 199 ff. DOI logo
Falck, Marlene Johansson & Lacey Okonski
2024. Metaphorical and non-metaphorical meaning from spatial relations. Review of Cognitive Linguistics DOI logo
O’Dowd, Niamh A
2024. The potential of creative uses of metonymy for climate protest. Discourse & Society 35:3 ► pp. 360 ff. DOI logo
Dyrmo, Tomasz
2023. Levels of metaphor in gesture. Pragmatics & Cognition 30:2 ► pp. 330 ff. DOI logo
Dyrmo, Tomasz
2024. Figurativeness of the Japanese flag. Review of Cognitive Linguistics DOI logo
Gibbs, Raymond W.
2023. Pragmatic complexity in metaphor interpretation. Cognition 237 ► pp. 105455 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 september 2024. 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.