Słowo o Teorii Metafor Pojęciowych w bieżącym dyskursie akademickim: komentarz do artykułu Ariadny Strugielskiej (2012) “Alternate Constuals of Source and Target Domains in Conceptual Metaphor”

• Authors: Turewicz Kamila

Title variants

EN

A Word on Conceptual Metaphor Theory in Current Academic Discourse: Inspired by Ariadna Strugielska’s (2012) Paper: “Alternate Source and Target Domains in Conceptual Metaphor”

• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

EN

Inspired by Strugielska’s (2012) article “Alternate Construals of Source and Target Domains in Conceptual Metaphor,” where the linguist presents a number of arguments questioning applicability of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) to the analysis of linguistic meaning, I attempt to reanalyze some of the arguments through reference to primary sources: Lakoff and Johnson (1980), Lakoff (1990), Kövecses (2000, 2002, 2005, 2011). The issues of direct concern are: dichotomous nature of conceptual domains and their assumed discretness, the issue of differentiating the conceptual structure form the semantic structure and cognitive metaphorical projections from the relation of categorization, the question of monosemy constraint and degree of informativeness of metaphorical projections. The issues are discussed in the source article in the context of works whose authors question validity of CMT on the basis of (naturally occurring) language data from corpora. My own reanalysis of the examples discussed exhibit the extent to which metaphorical projections between the source and the target domains can provide motivations for the language expressions, accounting for their metaphoricity. At the same time, employing analytic tools available within Cognitive Grammar, I demonstrate that the extent of the contribution of metaphorical projections to respective semantic structures is determined by the position of the source domain in the matrix of the respective profile/base alignment.

Keywords

EN

conceptual metaphor theory; academic discourse; conceptual domains; discretness; categorization; monosemy; informativeness

• Publisher: Komisja Nauk Filologicznych Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Oddział we Wrocławiu
• Journal: Academic Journal of Modern Philology
• Year: 2013
• Volume: 2
• Pages: 171-185

Dates

published

2013

Contributors

author

Turewicz Kamila

• Akademia Humanistyczno-Ekonomiczna w Łodzi

References

• Dobrovol’skij, D. O., E. Piirainen (2005) Figurative language. Cross-Cultural and Cross-Linguistic Perspectives. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
• Glynn, D. (2002) “Love and Anger: The Grammatical Structure of Conceptual Metaphors.” Style 36 (2). [In:] www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2342/is_3_36/ai_94775630/?tag=content;col1 ED 10.2010
• Jäkel, O. (2002) “Hypotheses Revisited: The Cognitive Theory of Metaphor Applied to Religious Texts.” Metaphoric.de 02,29-42. [In:] www.metaphoric.de/02/jaekel.pdf ED 12.2010.
• Kövecses, Zoltan (2000) Metaphor and Emotion: Language, Culture, and Body in Human Feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kövecses, Zoltan (2002) Metaphor. A Practical Introduction. Oxford and New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Kövecses, Zoltan (2005) Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge University Press.
• Kövecses, Zoltan (2011) “Cross-Cultural Aspects of Metaphor.” [In:] Kamila Turewicz (ed.) Cognitive Methodologies for Culture Language Interface. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Akademii Humanistyczno-Ekonomicznej w Łodzi.
• Lakoff , George (1990) “The Invariance Hypothesis: Is Abstract Reason Based on Image Schemas?” [In:] Cognitive Linguistics 1 (1); 39–74.
• Lakoff , George, Mark Johnson (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
• Langacker, Ronald W. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Strugielska, Adriana (2012) “Alternate Construals of Source and Target Domains in Conceptual Metaphors.” [In:] Zdzisław Wąsik, Piotr Czajka, Michał Szawerna (eds.) Alternate Construals in Language and Linguistics. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Filologicznej we Wrocławiu.
• Stefanowitsch, A. (2006) „Words and Their Metaphors.” [In:] Anatol Stefanowitsch, Stefan Thomas Gries (eds.) Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin and New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Szwedek, Aleksander (2002) “Objectification: From Object Perception to Metaphor Creation.” [In:] Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Kamila Turewicz (eds.) Cognitive Linguistics Today. Peter Lang.
• Wierzbicka, Aanna (1999) “Emotional Universals.” [In:] Language Design 2; 23–69. [In:] www.elies.rediris.-es/Language_Design/LD2/wierzbicka.pdf ED 01.2011.