Cover not available

Article published In: MetaNet
Edited by Miriam R.L. Petruck
[Constructions and Frames 8:2] 2016
► pp. 166–213

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

Formalizing contemporary conceptual metaphor theory

A structured repository for metaphor analysis

 | Stanford University
 | University of California, Merced
 | International Computer Science Institute
 | Google, USA
Published online: 6 April 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.8.2.03sti
This paper describes an innovative formalization of Conceptual Metaphor Theory and its implementation in a structured metaphor repository. Central to metaphor analysis is the development of an internal structure of frames and relations between frames, based on an Embodied Construction Grammar framework, which then informs the structure of metaphors and relationships between metaphors. The hierarchical nature of metaphors and frames is made explicit, such that inferential information originating in embodied conceptual primitives is inherited throughout the network. The present analysis takes a data-driven approach, where lexical differences in linguistic expressions attested in naturally-occurring discourse lead to a continued refinement and expansion of our analyses.
References (79)
References
Alonge, A. (2006). The Italian metaphor database. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2006 (pp. 455–460). Genoa, Italy: ELRA.
Bailey, D. (1997). A computational model of embodiment in the acquisition of action verbs. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barcelona, A. (2000). Introduction: The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 1–28). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergen, B.K. (2012). Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergen, B.K., & Chang, N. (2005). Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 147–190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H.C. (2009) (ed.). Multilingual FrameNets in computational lexicography: Methods and applications. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2013). Cognitive Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 233–254). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borin, L., Dannélls, D., Forsberg, M., Gronostaj, M.T., & Kokkinakis, D. (2009). Thinking green: Toward Swedish FrameNet++. Poster presented at TLT-8: The 8th International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories .
Bouveret, M., & Sweetser, E. (2009). Multi-frame semantics, metaphoric extensions, and grammar. In I. Kwon, H. Pritchett, & J. Spence (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-fifth annual meeting of the berkeley linguistics society (pp. 49–59). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
The British National Corpus. (2007). Version 3 (BNC XML Edition). Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. URL: [URL]
Clausner, T.C., & Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10(1), 1–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(4), 335–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2001). Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dodge, E., Hong, J., & Stickles, E. (2015). Metanet: Deep semantic analysis. In E. Shutova, B.B. Klebanov, & P. Lichtenstein (Eds.), Proceedings of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics – human language technologies 3rd workshop on metaphor in NLP (pp. 40–49).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dodge, E., & Lakoff, G. (2005). Image schemas: From linguistic analysis to neural grounding. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 57–91). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feldman, J. (2006). From molecule to metaphor. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feldman, J.A., Dodge, E.K., & Bryant, J. (2009). A neural theory of language and Embodied Construction Grammar. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 111–138). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feldman, J.A., & Narayanan, S. (2004). Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language. Brain and Language, 89(2), 385–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J. (1976). Frame Semantics and the nature of language. In S.R. Harnad, H.D. Steklis, & J. Lancaster (Eds.), Origins and evolution of language and speech, Vol. 2801 (pp. 20–32). Annals of the NY: Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1982). Frame Semantics. In Linguistics in the morning calm: Selected papers from SICOL (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1988). The mechanisms of Construction Grammar. In S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser, & H. Singmaster (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourteenth annual meeting of the berkeley linguistics society (pp. 35–55). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive neuropsychology, 22(3-4), 455–479. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R.W. (2009). Why do some people dislike conceptual metaphor theory? Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1-2), 14–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2011). Evaluating conceptual metaphor theory. Discourse Processes, 48(8), 529–562. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R.W., & Colston, H. (1995). The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. Cognitive Linguistics, 6(4), 347–378. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R.W., Lima, P.L.C., & Francozo, E. (2004). Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(7), 1189–1210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grady, J.E. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. PhD Dissertation, University of California Berkeley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grady, J. (2008). ‘Superschemas’ and the grammar of metaphorical mappings. In A. Tyler, Y. Kim, & M. Takada (Eds.), Language in the context of use: Discourse and cognitive approaches to language (pp. 339–360). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graff, D., & Cieri, C. (2003). English Gigaword LDC2003T05. Web Download. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C.J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2008). Conceptual metaphor theory: Some criticisms and alternative proposals. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6(1), 168–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction, 2nd ed. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2011). Methodological issues in conceptual metaphor theory. In S. Handl & H-J. Schmid (Eds.), Windows to the mind: Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual blending (pp. 23–40). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krötzsch, M., Vrandecic, D., Völkel, M., Haller, H., & R. Studer (2007). Semantic Wikipedia. Journal of Web Semantics, 5(4), 251–261. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2008). The neural theory of metaphor. In R.W. Gibbs (Ed.), The cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 17–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2012). Explaining embodied cognition results. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(4), 773–785. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., Espenson, J., & Schwartz, A. (1991). Master metaphor list. Second draft copy. Technical Report, Cognitive Linguistics Group. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.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
Lee, M.G., & Barnden, J.A. (2001). Mental metaphors from the master metaphor list: Empirical examples and the application of the ATT-Meta system. Technical Report CSRP-01-03, School of Computer Science, The University of Birmingham, U.K.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lönneker-Rodman, B. (2008). The Hamburg metaphor database project: Issues in resource creation. Language Resources and Evaluation, 421, 293–318. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, J.H. (1994). MetaBank: A knowledge-base of metaphoric language conventions. Computational Intelligence, 10(2), 134–149. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mason, Z.J. (2004). CorMet: A computational, corpus-based conventional metaphor extraction system. Computational Linguistics, 30(1), 23–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGlone, M.S. (2007). What is the explanatory value of a conceptual metaphor? Language and Communication, 27(2), 109–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moore, K.E. (2006). Space-to-time mappings and temporal concepts. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 199–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murata, T. (1989). Petri nets. In M.G. Singh (Ed.), Systems and control encyclopedia: Theory, technology, applications (pp. 3665–3670). Elmsford, New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nam, S., Park, J., Kim, Y., Ham, Y., Hwang, D., & Choi, K-S. (2014). Korean FrameNet for semantic analysis. Proceedings of the 13th International Semantic Web Conference .
Narayanan, S.S. (1997). Knowledge-based action representations for metaphor and aspect (KARMA). PhD Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ohara, K.H., Fujii, S., Ohori, T., Suzuki, R., Saito, H., & Ishizaki, S. (2004). The Japanese FrameNet project: An introduction. In The fourth international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC 4) (Eds.), Proceedings of the satellite workshop “Building lexical resources from semantically annotated corpora” (pp. 9–11).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petruck, M.R.L. (1996). Frame Semantics. In J-O. Östman, J. Blommaert, & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2013). Advances in Frame Semantics. In M. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), Advances in Frame Semantics (pp. 1–12). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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
Reisig, W. (1985). Petri nets (an introduction). EATCS monographs on theoretical computer science, Vol. 41. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J., & Perez Hernandez, L. (2011). The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26(3), 161–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M.R.L., Johnson, C.R., Baker, C. F., & Scheffczyk, J. (2016). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Berkeley, CA: International Computer Science Institute.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salomão, M.M.M., Torrent, T.T., & Sampaio, T.F. (2013). A linguística de corpus encontra a linguística computacional: Notícias do projeto FrameNet Brasil. Cadernos de Estudos Linguísticos, 55(1), 7–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G.J., Dorst, A.G., Herrmann, J.B., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2005). The function of metaphor: Developing a corpus-based perspective. International Journal of corpus Linguistics, 10(2), 161–198. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S.T. (Eds.). (2006). Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stickles, E., David, O., & Sweetser, E. (2016). Grammatical constructions, frame structure, and metonymy: Their contributions to metaphor computation. In A. Healey, R.N. de Souza, P. Pešková, & M. Allen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th meeting of the high desert linguistics society (pp. 317–345). Albuquerque, NM: High Desert Linguistics Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sullivan, K.S. (2006). Frame-based constraints on lexical choice in metaphor. In Z. Antić, C.B. Chang, E. Cibelli, J. Hong, M.J. Houser, C.S. Sandy, M. Toosarvandani, & Y. Yao (Eds.), 32nd annual meeting of the berkeley linguistics society (pp. 387–400). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2007). Grammar in metaphor: A construction grammar account of metaphoric language. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In H.L. Pick Jr. & L.P. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application (pp. 225–282). New York: Plenum Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 31, 57–149.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2003). Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. 1 and 21. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yu, N. (2011). A decompositional approach to metaphorical compound analysis: The case of a TV commercial. Metaphor and Symbol, 26(4), 243–259. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (20)

Cited by 20 other publications

Al-Hamad, Areej, Yasin M. Yasin, Kateryna Metersky & Sepali Guruge
2025. “Home Away From Home”: A Critical Metaphor Analysis of Displaced Ukrainian Women’s Experiences With Their Canadian Hosts. Global Qualitative Nursing Research 12 DOI logo
Stanja, Judith, Sarah Dannemann, Johannes Krugel & Anett Hoppe
2025. Investigating evidence-oriented generation of synthetic text data with a generative large language model in science education. International Journal of Science Education ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Luri, Ignacio, Hope Jensen Schau & Bikram Ghosh
2024. Metaphor-Enabled Marketplace Sentiment Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 61:3 ► pp. 496 ff. DOI logo
Panayiotou, Christiana
2024. Ontological Foundation for Representing Metaphors as Part of LOD. IEEE Access 12 ► pp. 73810 ff. DOI logo
Coll-Florit, Marta & Salvador Climent
2023. Metaphor repositories: the case of the mental health metaphor dictionary. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 38:4 ► pp. 1440 ff. DOI logo
Khalifa, Hanaa & Bacem A. Essam
2022. How does Maya Angelou perceive the African female body?. Journal of African American Studies 26:2 ► pp. 203 ff. DOI logo
Abdo, Muhammad S, Ali S Alghonaim & Bacem A Essam
2021. Public perception of COVID-19’s global health crisis on Twitter until 14 weeks after the outbreak. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 36:3 ► pp. 509 ff. DOI logo
Isaza, Carolina & Ringo Ossewaarde
2021. Corruption in Public Discourses: A Comparison Between Colombian and European Metaphors. Public Integrity 23:4 ► pp. 401 ff. DOI logo
Sartini, Bruno, Marieke van Erp & Aldo Gangemi
2021. Proceedings of the 11th Knowledge Capture Conference, ► pp. 201 ff. DOI logo
Zawisławska, Magdalena & Marta Falkowska
2021. Metaphors in Polish, English, Russian, and French perfumery discourse. Metaphor and the Social World 11:1 ► pp. 143 ff. DOI logo
Devylder, Simon & Jordan Zlatev
2020. Cutting and breaking metaphors of the self and the Motivation & Sedimentation Model. In Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language [Figurative Thought and Language, 9], ► pp. 253 ff. DOI logo
Moore, Kevin Ezra
2020. Moving Time vs. Frame-relative motion. Constructions and Frames 12:2 ► pp. 272 ff. DOI logo
Skrynnikova, Inna V.
2020. Analogical reasoning in uncovering the meaning of digital-technology terms: the case of backdoor. Journal of Computer-Assisted Linguistic Research 4:1 ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
Smith, Thomas H. & Anke Beger
2020. Conclusion. In How Metaphors Guide, Teach and Popularize Science [Figurative Thought and Language, 6], ► pp. 297 ff. DOI logo
Lederer, Jenny
2019. Lexico-grammatical alignment in metaphor construal. Cognitive Linguistics 30:1 ► pp. 165 ff. DOI logo
Sweetser, Eve, Oana David & Elise Stickles
2019. MetaNet. In Metaphor and Metonymy in the Digital Age [Metaphor in Language, Cognition, and Communication, 8], ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
Yu, Ning & Jie Huang
2019. Primary Metaphors across Languages: Difficulty as Weight and Solidity. Metaphor and Symbol 34:2 ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo
Zawisławska, Magdalena
2019. Narrative metaphors in Polish perfumery discourse. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 6:2 ► pp. 221 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
Van Eecke, Paul & Katrien Beuls
2018. Exploring the Creative Potential of Computational Construction Grammar. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 66:3 ► pp. 341 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