Article published In:
Review of Cognitive LinguisticsVol. 14:2 (2016) ► pp.442–473
Communicating flexibly with metaphor
A complex of strengthening, elaboration, replacement, compounding and unrealism
This article argues that certain phenomena concerning metaphor that have been studied largely separately are in fact strongly interrelated, to the extent of forming an indivisible complex that should ideally be addressed in a unified way. The phenomena addressed here are metaphor compounding, metaphor elaboration (often called metaphor extension), metaphor replacement, metaphor strength-modification, and unrealistic source-domain situations. The interrelationships between phenomena that the article discusses include: the potential for unrealism and partial forms of replacement to be implicated in compounding; the way strength-modification can arise from compounding and replacement; and the affinity between elaboration and weak forms of replacement. The article also sketches how the author’s ATT-Meta approach to metaphor, which has previously been presented as handling elaboration and compounding, and hence some types of strengthening, is suitable also for handling the other phenomena.
References (45)
Aisenman, R.A. (1999). Structure-mapping and the simile-metaphor preference. Metaphor and Symbol, 14(1), 45–51. 
Allbritton, D.W. (1995). When metaphors function as schemas: Some cognitive effects of conceptual metaphors. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10 (1), 33–46.
Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2001). Metaphor in discourse. In P. Bouillon & F. Busa (Eds.), The language of word meaning (pp. 263–287). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barnden, J.A. (2001). Uncertainty and conflict handling in the ATT-Meta context-based system for metaphorical reasoning. In V. Akman, P. Bouquet, R. Thomason, & R.A. Young (Eds.), Modeling and using context: Third international and interdisciplinary conference (CONTEXT 2001) (pp. 15–29). Berlin: Springer.
. (2006). Consequences for language learning of an AI approach to metaphor. In J. Salazar, M. Amengual, & M. Juan (Eds.), Usos sociales del lenguaje y aspectos psicolingüísticos: Perspectivas aplicadas (pp. 15–57). Palma de Mallorca: Universitat de les Illes Baleares.
. (2008). Metaphor and artificial intelligence: Why they matter to each other. In R.W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 311–338). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
. (2010). Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 1–34.
. (2012). Metaphor and simile: Fallacies concerning comparison, ellipsis and inter-paraphrase. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(4), 265–282.
. (2015a). Metaphor, simile, and the exaggeration of likeness. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(1), 41–62.
. (2015b). Open-ended elaborations in creative metaphor. In T.R. Besold,
M. Schorlemmer, & A. Smaill (Eds.), Computational creativity research: Towards creative machines (pp. 217–242). Berlin: Springer.
. (2016). Mixed metaphor: Its depth, its breadth, and a pretence-based approach. In R.W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), Mixing metaphor (pp. 73–112). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Barnden, J.A., & Lee, M.G. (2002). An artificial intelligence approach to metaphor understanding. In T. Komendzinski (Ed.), Metaphor: A multidisciplinary approach. Special issue. Theoria et Historia Scientiarum, 6(1), 399–412.
Carston, R. (1996). Metalinguistic negation and echoic use. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), 309–330.
Carston, R., & Wearing, C. (2011). Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition, 3(2), 283–312.
Chiappe, D.L., & Kennedy, J.M. (2000). Are metaphors elliptical similes? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(4), 371–398.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2008). Rethinking metaphor. In R.W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 53–66). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Fogelin, R.J. (2011). Figuratively speaking (Revised ed.). New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 95–119.
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, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R.W., Jr. (Ed.). (2016). Mixing metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gibbs, R.W., Jr. & Santa Cruz, M.J. (2012). Temporal unfolding of conceptual metaphoric experience. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(4), 299–311.
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. New York: Oxford University Press.
. (2008). How metaphors create categories – quickly. In R.W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 67–83). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
. (2011). Understanding metaphors: The paradox of unlike things compared. In K. Ahmad (Ed.), Affective computing and sentiment analysis: Emotion, metaphor and terminology (pp. 1–12). Berlin: Springer.
Glucksberg, S., & Haught, C. (2006). Can Florida become like the next Florida?: When metaphoric comparisons fail. Psychological Science, 17(11), 935–938.
Grady, J.E. (1997). Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267–290.
Grossman, Z. (2002). Afghanistan is Vietnam ... and Yugoslavia, Colombia, and Somalia, all rolled into one. In R. Burbach & B. Clark (Eds.), September 11 and the U.S. war: Beyond the curtain of smoke (pp. 61–64). San Francisco: City Lights Books.
Hobbs, J.R. (1992). Metaphor and abduction. In A. Ortony, J. Slack, & O. Stock (Eds.), Communication from an artificial intelligence perspective: Theoretical and applied issues (pp. 35–58). Berlin: Springer.
Horn, L.R. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language, 61(1), 121–174.
Kimmel, M. (2010). Why we mix metaphors (and mix them well): Discourse coherence, conceptual metaphor, and beyond. Journal of Pragmatics, 421, 97–115.
Kittay, E.F. (1989). Metaphor: Its cognitive force and linguistic structure. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). New York/Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lee, M.G., & Barnden, J.A. (2001). Reasoning about mixed metaphors with an implemented AI system. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(1/2), 29–42.
Littlemore, J., & Low, G.D. (2006). Figurative thinking and foreign language learning.
Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave, Macmillan.
Mann, W., & Thompson, S. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 81, 243–281.
Musolff, A. (2007). Popular science concepts and their use in creative metaphors in media discourse. metaphorik.de, 131, 67–85.
Oates, J.C. (2002). I’ll take you there. London/New York: Fourth Estate.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
. (2008). A deflationary account of metaphor. In R.W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 84–105). Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press.
Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G. (1995). Conceptual integration and formal expression. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10(3), 183–204.
Walton, K. (2004)[1993]. Metaphor and prop oriented make-believe. In E. John & D.M. Lopes (Eds.), Philosophy of literature – Contemporary and classic readings: An anthology (pp. 239–247). Oxford: Blackwell. Reprinted with abridgement from European Journal of Philosophy, 1, 39–57.
Wee, L. (2003). A new look at novelty in metaphor: Implications for metaphor comprehension and production. Talk given at
5th International conference on researching and applying metaphor (RAAM V)
, University of Paris 13, France, 2–5 September 2003.
White, R.M. (1996). The structure of metaphor: The way the language of metaphor works. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.
Wilson, D., & Carston, R. (2006). Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue. Mind and Language, 21(3), 404–433.
Cited by (9)
Cited by nine other publications
Fawzy, Rania Magdi
Despot, Kristina Š., Ana Ostroški Anić & Tony Veale
2023. “Somewhere along your pedigree, a bitch got over the wall!” A proposal of implicitly offensive language typology. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 19:2 ► pp. 385 ff. 
Jódar-Sánchez, Jose Antonio
2023.
Urban Sexuality and Geological Erotism in
Antagonía
by Luis Goytisolo
. Romance Studies 41:3 ► pp. 224 ff.
Barnden, John A.
2022. Metonymy, reflexive hyperbole and broadly reflexive relationships. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 33 ff.
Wackers, Dunja Y. M. & H. José Plug
2022. Countering Undesirable Implications of Violence Metaphors for Cancer through Metaphor Extension. Metaphor and Symbol 37:1 ► pp. 55 ff.
Werkmann Horvat, Ana, Marianna Bolognesi, Jeannette Littlemore & John Barnden
2022. Comprehension of different types of novel metaphors in monolinguals and multilinguals. Language and Cognition 14:3 ► pp. 401 ff.
Ervas, Francesca
2021. Metaphor, ignorance and the sentiment of (ir)rationality. Synthese 198:7 ► pp. 6789 ff.
Barnden, John
2020. Metaphor thoughtfully. In Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language [Figurative Thought and Language, 9], ► pp. 14 ff.
Kuiken, Don & Shawn Douglas
2018. Living metaphor as the site of bidirectional literary engagement. Scientific Study of Literature 8:1 ► pp. 47 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 july 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.