Cover not available

Article published In: MetaNet
Edited by Miriam R.L. Petruck
[Constructions and Frames 8:2] 2016
► pp. 141–165

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Integrating constructional semantics and conceptual metaphor

 | University of Queensland
Published online: 6 April 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.8.2.02sul
Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) aims to represent the conceptual structure of metaphors rather than the structure of metaphoric language. The theory does not explain which aspects of metaphoric language evoke which conceptual structures, for example. However, other theories within cognitive linguistics may be better suited to this task. These theories, once integrated, should make building a unified model of both the conceptual and linguistic aspects of metaphor possible. First, constructional approaches to syntax provide an explanation of how particular constructional slots are associated with different functions in evoking metaphor. Cognitive Grammar is especially effective in this regard. Second, Frame Semantics helps explain how the words or phrases that fill the relevant constructional slots evoke the source and target domains of metaphor. Though these theories do not yet integrate seamlessly, their combination already offers explanatory benefits, such as allowing generalizations across metaphoric and non-metaphoric language, and identifying the words that play a role in evoking metaphors, for example.
References (28)
References
Brooke–Rose, C. (1958). A grammar of metaphor. London: Secker and Warburg Ltd.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2003). 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. 161–206). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D.A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ernst, T. (1984). Towards an integrated theory of adverb position in English. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2001). The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J. (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
FrameNet. (2015). FrameNet Release 1.6. Freely available as a download from the FrameNet project. Updated data available at [URL] (accessed July 2015).
Gibbs, R.W. Jr., & Tendahl, M. (2006). Cognitive effort and effects in metaphor comprehension: Relevance theory and psycholinguistics. Mind and Language, 21(3), 379–403. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. Basic books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. I1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. II1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2002). Concept, image and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. (1998). On the nature of blending as a cognitive phenomenon. Journal of Pragmatics, 301, 259–274. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M.R.L., Johnson, C.R., & Scheffczyk, J. (2016). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice (“The Book”). Web publication available via [URL].
Steen, G., Dorst, A.G., Kaal, A., Herrmann, J.B., & Krennmayr, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sullivan, K. (2009). Grammatical constructions in metaphoric language. In B. Lewandowska–Tomaszczyk & K. Dziwirek (Eds.), Cognitive corpus linguistics (pp. 57–80). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, J.R. (1989). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turner, M. (1987). Death is the mother of beauty: Mind, metaphor, criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1991). Reading minds: The study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (14)

Cited by 14 other publications

Busso, Lucia & Ottavia Tordini
2025. How do media talk about the COVID-19 pandemic?. In COVID-19 [Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication, 11], ► pp. 10 ff. DOI logo
Lang, Jun, Heidi Hui Shi & Zhuo Jing-Schmidt
2025. Beyond smell: rethinking the figurative force of olfactory language. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory DOI logo
Pietrzak, Bartosz
2025. Frame semantics in research on oral poetries: opportunities and challenges. A case study on early Arabic poetry. Journal of Literary Semantics 54:2 ► pp. 103 ff. DOI logo
Scharlau, Ingrid, Miriam Körber, Meghdut Sengupta & Henning Wachsmuth
2024. When to use a metaphor: metaphors in dialogical explanations with addressees of different expertise. Frontiers in Language Sciences 3 DOI logo
Sullivan, Karen
2023. Three levels of framing. WIREs Cognitive Science 14:5 DOI logo
Engelberg, Stefan, Françoise Gallez & Manon Hermann
2022. Musterhafte Strukturen im Bereich von Metaphern und Metonymien. In Cognition and Contrast, ► pp. 47 ff. DOI logo
Law, James
2022. Metonymy and argument alternations in French communication frames. Cognitive Linguistics 33:2 ► pp. 387 ff. DOI logo
Dalpanagioti, Thomai
2021. A Frame-Inspired Task-Based Approach to Metaphor Teaching. Lexis :18 DOI logo
Kövecses, Zoltán
2020. Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory, DOI logo
Liu, Xiaoyu, Shi, Heidi H. & Zhuo, Jing-Schmidt
2020. Manual Action Metaphors in Chinese A Usage-Based Constructionist Study. In Corpus-Based Research on Chinese Language and Linguistics [Sinica venetiana, 6], DOI logo
Colston, Herbert L.
2019. How Language Makes Meaning, DOI logo
Colston, Herbert L.
2025. A look at, inside, and outside metaphors. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 23:1 ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
Lederer, Jenny
2019. Lexico-grammatical alignment in metaphor construal. Cognitive Linguistics 30:1 ► pp. 165 ff. DOI logo
DAVID, OANA & TEENIE MATLOCK
2018. Cross-linguistic automated detection of metaphors for poverty and cancer. Language and Cognition 10:3 ► pp. 467 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue