Cover not available
Article published In:
Terminology
Vol. 26:2 (2020) ► pp.237–264

Multidimensionality, dynamicity, and complexity

A reconsideration of the functions of metaphorical terms

| China Pharmaceutical University
| Nanjing University

With the cognitive shift since the 1990s, metaphorical terms have become a recurrent theme in terminological studies. However, how they actually function in science communication has not been fully explored. The issue becomes more pressing today since the exponential expansion of knowledge has heightened our awareness of the need for new designations. And the metaphorical approach is often an economic choice. To gain more insights into the mechanism of metaphorical terms, the authors of the present study will reexamine their functional peculiarities by looking at their linguistic, cognitive and communicative facets respectively. The multidimensional functions of metaphorical terms as exemplified by those in economics are described in detail. More importantly, their dynamic functional potentialities as well as the interplay among them are further discussed.

Keywords: metaphorical terms in economics, functions, functional potentialities, reconsideration
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Multidimensionality: Functions of a metaphorical term as a polyhedron
    • 2.1Linguistic function: Plugging lexical gaps with linguistic economy
    • 2.2Cognitive function: Reducing the comprehension and memory load
    • 2.3Communicative function: Enhancing pragmatic effects with undertones
  • 3.Dynamicity: Multivalent functional potentialities of a metaphorical term
    • 3.1Linguistic functional potentiality in term formation
    • 3.2Cognitive functional potentiality in theory construction
    • 3.3Communicative functional potentiality in discursive rhetoric
  • 4.Complexity: Situational interplay of different functional facets
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 4 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/term.00052.jia
References
Alexiev, Boyan
2004 “Towards an Experientialist Model of Terminological Metaphorisation”. Terminology, 10(2): 189–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker, Gary S.
1964 Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Bies, Werner
1996 “Thinking with the help of images: on the metaphors of knowledge organization.” Knowledge Organization 23(1), 3–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Richard
1993 “Metaphor and theory change: What is ‘metaphor’ a metaphor for?” In Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony, 481–532. New York: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cabré, M. Teresa
2000 “Elements for a theory of terminology: Towards an alternative paradigm”. Terminology 6(1): 35–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 “Theories of terminology: Their description, prescription and explanation”. Terminology 9(2): 163–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charteris-Black, Jonathan
2009 “Metaphor and political communication”. In Metaphor and Discourse, ed. by Andreas Musolff, and Jörg Zinken, 97–115. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Condamines, Anne
2017 “The emotional dimension in terminological variation: The example of transitivization of the locative complement in fishing”. In Multiple Perspectives on Terminological Variation, ed. by Patrick Drouin, Aline Francœur, John Humbley, and Aurelié Picton, 11–30. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuadrado, Georgina, and Pilar Durán
2013 “Proposal for a semantic hierarchy of terminological metaphors in science and technology”. International Journal of English Linguistics 3(4): 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dion, Delphine, and Gérald Mazzalov
2016 “Reviving sleeping beauty brands by rearticulating brand heritage”. Journal of Business Research 69(12): 5894–5900. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escribano, P. Durán, and Irina A. Álvarez
2016 “Cross-disciplinary metaphorical meaning extension in the creation of new scientific terms”. Beyond the Universe of Languages for Specific Purposes: The 21st century perspective: 107–110.Google Scholar
Faber, Pamela. et al.
2014 “Neural substrates of specialized knowledge representation: an fMRI study”. Revue française de linguistique appliquée 19(1): 15–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faber, Pamela, and Carlos Márquez Linares
2004 “The role of imagery in specialized communication”. In Imagery in Language, ed. by Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Alina Kwiatkowska, 585–602. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2005 “A three-level model of metaphor for specialized communication”. Translationswissenschaft im interdisziplinären Dialog: 71–94.Google Scholar
Faber, Pamela
2012 “Conclusion”. In A Cognitive Linguistics View of Terminology and Specialized Language, ed. by Pamela Faber, 249–258. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faber, Pamela, and Antonio S. M. Pizarro
2012 “Specialized language pragmatics”. In A Cognitive Linguistics View of Terminology and Specialized Language, ed. by Pamela Faber, 177–203. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles
1997 Mappings in Thought and Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Felber, Helmut
1984 Terminology Manual. Paris: UNESCO & INFOTERM.Google Scholar
Finatto, M. J. Bocorny
2010 “Metaphors in scientific and technical languages: Challenges and perspective”. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada 261(SPE): 645–656. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frezza, Giulia, and Elena Gagliasso
2017 “Building metaphors: Constitutive narratives in science”. In Metaphor in Communication, Science and Education, ed. by Francesca Ervas, Elisabetta Gola, and Maria G. Rossi, 199–216. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goatly, Andrew
1997 The Language of Metaphors. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Han, Jing
2009 “A sketch of games of translation”. Journal of Language and Literature (4): 65–66.Google Scholar
Kageura, Kyo
2002 The Dynamics of Terminology: A descriptive theory of term formation and terminological growth. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson
1980 Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
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 Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony, 202–251. New York: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Ingrid, and Kristen Mackintosh
1996 “Refining the terminographer’s concept-analysis: How can phraseology help”. Terminology 3(1): 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Ingrid, Victoria Zaluski, and Kristen MacIntosh
1997 “Metaphorical Internet terms: a conceptual and structural analysis.” Terminology 4(1): 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morgenstern, Oskar, and John Von Neumann
1953 Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Prandi, Michele
2010 “Typology of Metaphors: Implications for Translation.” Mutatis Mutandis: Revista Latinoamericana de Traducción 3(2): 304–332.Google Scholar
Reeves, Carol
2005 The Language of Science. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Resche, Catherine
2001 “Equivocal Economic Terms or Terminology Revisited.” Meta, 45 (1): 158–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “Towards a better understanding of metaphorical networks in the language of economics: The importance of theory-constitutive metaphors.” In Metaphor and Mills: Figurative Language in Business and Economics, ed. by Honesto Herrera-Soler, and Michael White, 77–102. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Economic Terms and Beyond: Capitalising on the Wealth of Notions. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richardt, Susanne
2005 Metaphor in Languages for Special Purposes: The Function of Conceptual Metaphor in Written Expert Language and Expert-Lay Communication in the Domains of Economics, Medicine and Computing. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rossi, Micaela
2017a “Terminological metaphors and the nomadism of specialized terms: Some observations on intralinguistic and interlinguistic variation”. In Multiple Perspectives on Terminological Variation, ed. by Patrick Drouin, Aline Francœur, John Humbley, and Aurelié Picton, 181–211. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017b “Some observations about metaphors in specialised languages”. In Metaphor in Communication, Science and Education, ed. by Francesca Ervas, Elisabetta Gola, and Maria G. Rossi, 151–168. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sager, Juan. C.
1990 A Practical Course in Terminology Processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sánchez, M. Tercedor, Clara I. L. Rodríguez, Carlos Márquez Linares, and Pamela Faber
2012 “Metaphor and metonymy in specialized language”. In Faber, P. (eds.). 64–102. A Cognitive Linguistics View of Terminology and Specialized Language. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schultz, Theodore W.
1961 “Investment in human capital”. The American Economic Review 51(1): 1–17.Google Scholar
Shumeli, Arjan, Esmeralda Sotiri, and Rajmonda Novaku
2012 “A comparative analysis of term-formation in the field of earth sciences: Terminologization and reterminologization”. ANGLISTICUM. Journal of the Association for Anglo-American Studies 1(2): 37–43.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam
1776 An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London: W. Stahan & T. Cadell.Google Scholar
Temmerman, Rita
1997 “Questioning the univocity ideal. The difference between socio-cognitive terminology and traditional terminology”. HERMES-Journal of Language and Communication in Business 10(18): 51–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 Towards New Ways of Terminology Description. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 “Metaphorical models and the translator’s approach to scientific texts”. Linguistica Antverpiensia. New Series-Themes in Translation Studies (1): 211–226.Google Scholar
Ureña, J. Manuel
2011 Metaphor in Specialised Language: An English-Spanish Comparative Study. Granada: University of Granada.Google Scholar
2012 “Conceptual types of terminological metaphors in marine biology: An English-Spanish contrastive analysis from an experientialist perspective”. In Metaphor in Use: Context, Culture and Communication, ed. by MacArthur, F. et al., 239–260. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Bin
2004 “Translation and games”. Journal of University of Shanghai for Science and Technology (2): 25–29.Google Scholar
White, Michael
2003 “Metaphor and Economics: The Case of Growth”. English for Specific Purposes 22(2): 131–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar