Article published In:
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied LinguisticsVol. 27:1 (2014) ► pp.187–207
Vol. 27:1 (2014) ► pp.187–207
Mapping concepts
Understanding figurative thought from a cognitive-linguistic perspective
The notion of “conceptual mapping”, as a set of correspondences between conceptual domains, was popularized in Cognitive Semantics, following seminal work by Lakoff & Johnson (1980), as a way of accounting for the basic cognitive activity underlying metaphor and metonymy. Strangely enough, Cognitive Semantics has paid little, if any, attention to other cases of so-called figurative language such as hyperbole, irony, paradox, and oxymoron. This paper contends that it is possible to account for these and other figures of thought in terms of the notion of conceptual mapping. It argues that the differences between these and other figurative uses of language are a matter of the nature of the domains involved in mappings and how they are made to correspond. Additionally, this paper examines constraints on mappings and concludes that the same factors that constrain metaphor and metonymy are operational in the case of mappings for the other figures of thought under discussion.
Keywords: mapping, metaphor, figures of thought, constraints on mappings, metonymy
References (40)
Barcelona, A. (2014). Metonymy. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (forthcoming). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Clark, H., & Gerrig, R. (1984). On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1131, 121–126. Reprinted in Gibbs and Colston (2007, pp. 25-33.). 
Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. (2010). Looking back at 30 years of Cognitive Linguistics. In E. Tabakowska, M. Choiński, & L. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics in action: From theory to application and back (pp. 13–70). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Edwards, D. (2000). Extreme case formulations: Softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(4), 347–373.
Evans, V. (2013). Metaphor, lexical concepts, and figurative meaning construction. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1-2), 73–107.
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R.W. (2011). Evaluating conceptual metaphor theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529–562.
Gibbs, R.W., & Colston, H. (Eds.). (2007). Irony in language and thought: A cognitive science reader. New York: Elbaum.
Grady, J. (1997). Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267–290.
. (1999). A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. In R.W. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hampe, B. (In cooperation with Grady, J.) (Ed.). (2005). From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 91, 37–77.
Kreuz, R.J., & Caucci, G.M. (2009). Social aspects of verbal irony use. In H. Pishwa (Ed.), Language and social cognition: Expression of the social mind (pp. 325–348). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lakoff, G. (1990). The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74.
. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought, 2nd. ed. (pp. 202–251). Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.
. (2008). The neural theory of metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leech, G. (1969). A linguistic guide to English poetry. London: Longman.
Niño, D., & Serventi, G. (2013). Cognitive type and visual metaphorical expression. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1-2), 367–392.
Norrick, N.R. (2004). Hyperbole, extreme case formulation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(9), 1727–1739.
Oakley, T. (2007). Image schemas. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 214–235). New York: Oxford University Press.
Peña, S. (2003). Topology and cognition: What image-schemas reveal about the metaphorical language of emotions. Munich: Lincom Europa.
. (2008). Dependency systems for image-schematic patterns in a usage-based approach to language. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(6), 1041–1066.
Peña, S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. (2009). Metonymic and metaphoric bases of two image-schema transformations. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 339–361). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9(2-3), 219–229.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. (1998). On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 301, 259–274.
. (2011). Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona Sánchez, & F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.) Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 103–124). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
. (2014). On the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explanation: Towards settling some controversies. In J. Taylor & J. Littlemore (Eds.), Companion to cognitive linguistics (forthcoming). London: Continuum.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Pérez, L. (2011). The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 261, 161–185.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Santibáñez, F. (2003). Content and formal cognitive operations in construing meaning. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15(2), 293–320.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
. (1998). Irony and relevance. A reply to Seto, Hamamoto and Yamanashi. In R. Carston & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance theory: Applications and implications (pp. 283–293). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tendahl, M., & Gibbs. R.W. (2008). Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 401, 1823–1864.
Valenzuela, J., & Soriano, C. (2005). Cognitive metaphor and empirical methods. Barcelona English Language and Literature Studies, 141 (online access at [URL]).
Wilson, D. (2006). The pragmatics of verbal irony: Echo or pretence? Lingua, 1161, 1722–1743.
Wilson, D., & Carston, R. (2007). Metaphor and the ‘emergent property’ problem: A relevance theoretic treatment. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 31, 1–40.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2012). Explaining irony. In D. Wilson & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (pp. 123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cited by (17)
Cited by 17 other publications
Kratochvílová, Dana
2024. Review of Peña-Cervel & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (2022): Figuring out figuration: A cognitive linguistic account. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 22:1 ► pp. 289 ff. 
Alarcón-Hermosilla, Salvador, Neil Nehring & Javier Campos Calvo Sotelo
2023. Drowned, Washed Up, and Left for Dead: Hyperbolic Irreverence in “Jumpin’ Jack Flash”. Rock Music Studies 10:1 ► pp. 69 ff.
Barnden, John
2023. Irony, Exaggeration, and Hyperbole: No Embargo on the Cargo!. In The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought, ► pp. 272 ff.
de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José Ruiz
2022. Analogical and Non-analogical Resemblance in Figurative Language: A Cognitive-Linguistic Perspective. In Metaphors and Analogies in Sciences and Humanities [Synthese Library, 453], ► pp. 269 ff.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José
2017. Chapter 8. Cognitive modeling and irony. In Irony in Language Use and Communication [Figurative Thought and Language, 1], ► pp. 179 ff.
Ovejas Ramírez, Carla
2021. Hyperbolic markers in modeling hyperbole: a scenario-based account. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 85 ► pp. 61 ff.
Popa-Wyatt, Mihaela
2020. Mind the gap. In Producing Figurative Expression [Figurative Thought and Language, 10], ► pp. 449 ff.
Rasulić, Katarina
2020. Chapter 4. Turning the heart into a neighbour. In The Language of Crisis [Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, 87], ► pp. 111 ff.
Barnden, John A.
2017. Chapter 7. Irony, pretence and fictively-elaborating hyperbole. In Irony in Language Use and Communication [Figurative Thought and Language, 1], ► pp. 145 ff.
Crespo-Fernández, Eliecer & Carmen Luján-García
2017. Anglicisms and word axiology in homosexual language. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 30:1 ► pp. 74 ff.
Peña Cervel, María Sandra & Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez
2017. Chapter 2. Construing and constructing hyperbole. In Studies in Figurative Thought and Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 56], ► pp. 42 ff.
Peña Cervel, María Sandra
2016. Argument structure and implicational constructions at the crossroads. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 14:2 ► pp. 474 ff.
Carrió-Pastor, María Luisa
2015. AESLA: The Spanish Association for Applied Linguistics. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 3:1 ► pp. 135 ff.
Timofeeva-Timofeev, Larissa & Chelo Vargas-Sierra
2015. On terminological figurativeness. Terminology. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication 21:1 ► pp. 102 ff.
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
2023. Irony, Affect, and Related Figures. In The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought, ► pp. 235 ff.
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.