Article published in:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 12:2 (2014) ► pp. 342–374

The nature of domains and the relationships between them in metaphorization

| University of Social Sciences, Warsaw
In 2011 I proposed a new approach to metaphor analysis and typology, based on the strict distinction between the material and phenomenological worlds. I concluded that the ultimate source domain (experiential basis) is the world of physical objects. The present paper develops these ideas, presenting a more detailed analysis of each of the metaphor types. Thus, I claim that the concrete-to-concrete metaphors are based on metonymy and abstract-to-concrete on the OBJECT schema. Abstract-to-abstract metaphorization falls into two traditional types: structural and orientational metaphors. As to the former, I show that the vague expressions “more concrete domain” or “more abstract domain” can be made clearer by considering the ontological status of the component elements of the domain: the “more concrete” domain has more elements of physical ontology. Orientational metaphors have been found to be only superficially orientational, their true objective being valuation. I conclude that all these metaphor types eventually refer to the world of physical objects for their experiential basis.
Keywords: “more concrete/more abstract” domain distinction, orientational metaphors as valuational mechanism, experiential basis, objectification, metonymy-based metaphors, typology of metaphors, OBJECT schema
Published online: 31 October 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.12.2.04szw
References

References

Aquinas, T.
(1265–1274 [2008]) Summa Theologica(The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Second and revised edition 1920 Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Online Edition Copyright 2008 by Kevin Knight). (http://​www​.newadvent​.org​/summa​/1001​.htm#article9)
Barcelona, A.
(2000) On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 3–58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2003a) Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update. In R. Dirven & R. Pöring (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 207–277). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2003b) The metaphorical and metonymic understanding of the Trinitarian Dogma. International Journal of English Studies, 3 (1), 1–27.Google Scholar
(2011) Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez. (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 7–59). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L.W.
(1999), Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660 (pages 610–660 are Open Peer Commentary).Google Scholar
Brugman, C.
(1990) What is the Invariance Hypothesis? Cognitive Linguistics, 1 (2), 257–266. CrossrefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B.
(2008) Metaphor as structure-mapping. In R.W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 109–128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R.W. Jr
(1996) Why many concepts are metaphorical. Cognition, 61, 309–319. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Good, J.
(2006) Wittgenstein and the theory of perception. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Grady, J., Taub, S., & Morgan, P.
(1996) Primitive and compound metaphors. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 177–187). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Hampe, B.
(Ed.) (2005) From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kiełtyka, R.
(2007) Dark horses, fat cats and lucky dogs: A synthetic view of English zoosemy. In G. Kleparski, R. Kiełtyka & M. Pikor-Niedziałek (Eds.), Aspects of semantic transposition of words (pp. 43–55). Chełm: Wydawnictwo TAWA.Google Scholar
(2008) On zoosemy: The study of Middle English and Early Modern English domesticated animals. Rzeszów: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego.Google Scholar
(2009) Zoosemy as a ubiquitous cognitive mechanism. In G. Kleparski, 
P. Cymbalista, R. Kiełtyka & K. Pytel (Eds.), In medias res (pp. 41–56). Rzeszów: Wydaw­nictwo PROMAR-INTERNATIONAL.Google Scholar
Kimmel, M.
(2005) Culture regained: Situated and compound image schemas. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning (pp. 285–311). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kotarbiński, T.
(1990 [1929]) Elementy teorii poznania, logiki formalnej i metodologii nauk [Elements of the theory of knowledge, formal logic and methodology of the sciences]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
(2008) The conceptual structure of happiness. In H. Tissari, A.B. Pessi & 
M. Salmela (Eds.), Happiness: Cognition, experience, language (pp. 131–143).Helsinki: Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
(2010) 2nd ed. Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2011) Recent developments in metaphor theory: Are the new views rival ones? Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (1), 11–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krzeszowski, T.
(1997) Angels and devils in hell. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Energeia.Google Scholar
Kwiatkowska, A.
(2007) Pre-linguistic and non-linguistic metonymy. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy (pp. 297–308). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1990) The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1–2, 39–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980 2nd ed. 2002). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M.
(1989) More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Łukasiewicz, J.
(1951) Aristotle’s syllogistic from the standpoint of modern formal logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Michotte, A., Thines, G., & Crabbe, G.
(1991 [1964]) Amodal completion of perceptual structures. In G. Thines, A. Costall & G. Butterworth (Eds.), Michotte’s experimental phenomenology of perception (pp. 140–167). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Quinn, N., & Holland, D.
(1987) Culture and cognition. In N. Quinn & D. Holland (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 3–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
(1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Radden, G.
(2003) How metonymic are metaphors?. In R. Dirven & R. Pöring (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 407–434). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2005) The metaphor TIME AS SPACE across languages. In E. Górska & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy – metaphor – collage (pp. 99–120). Warsaw: Warsaw University Press.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Peña, S.
(2005) Conceptual interaction, cognitive operations, and projection spaces. In F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza & S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 254–280). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Pérez, L.
(2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26 (3), 161–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J.R.
(1985) Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1990) Consciousness, explanatory inversion, and cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 585–642. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szwedek, A.
(2000) The ontology of metaphors: The sense of touch in language formation. Scripta Periodica, 4, 193–199.Google Scholar
(2002) Objectification: From object perception to metaphor creation. In 
B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & K. Turewicz (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics to-day (pp. 159–175). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2004) Objectification in metaphorical processes: Some philosophical issues. Lingua Posnaniensis, 46, 121–130.Google Scholar
(2009) Conceptualization of space and time. In P. Łobacz, P. Nowak & 
W. Zabrocki (Eds.), Language, science and culture (pp. 317–333). Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.Google Scholar
(2011) The ultimate source domain. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (2), 341–366. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M.
(1990) Aspects of the invariance hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 247–255. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wachowski, W.
(2011) Understanding metonymy. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Adam Mickiewicz University.
Zimmerman, M.
(1997) How science and society respond to extraordinary patterns. Talk given at PEER’s August 1997 conference. Retrieved on February 24, 2014 from http://​netowne​.com​/ufos​/important​/extraordinary​.htm

Sources

Oxford English dictionary (OED)
on CD (2nd edition).
Microsoft bookshelf (MBS)
1996–1997 Ed.. Microsoft.
Collocations: Dictionary for students of English (CDSE)
2002 Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Trojszczak, Marcin
2019.  In Contacts and Contrasts in Cultures and Languages [Second Language Learning and Teaching, ], ► pp. 85 ff. Crossref logo
Trojszczak, Marcin
2019.  In Perception Metaphors [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research, 19], ► pp. 209 ff. 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.