Cover not available

Article published In: Transcategoriality: A crosslinguistic perspective
Edited by Sylvie Hancil, Danh Thành Do-Hurinville and Huy Linh Dao
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies 5:1] 2018
► pp. 133–154

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

Perceptions of danger and co-occurring metaphors in Buddhist dhamma talks and Christian sermons

 | Hokkaido University
 | Hokkaido University
Published online: 30 August 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00016.ric
Abstract
This article focuses on an analysis of the perception of danger in a sample of conservative Evangelical Christian sermons and Thai Forest Tradition dhamma talks. Through the analysis of keywords, frames, conceptual metaphors, and patterns of agency in the use of metaphor, it seeks to explore how one Christian believer and one Buddhist practitioner conceptualize their ways of being religious. We argue that this specific set of dhamma talks has a primary focus on an individual actively progressing within the practice of meditation while interacting with elements that may be beneficial or harmful to that progress. In contrast, this particular sample of sermons has a primary focus on two groups or categories of people, fallen sinners and true Christians, and their strictly defined hierarchical relationship to God. Aspects of this relationship are often defined in terms of power, fear, and danger, with shifting intersections between active behavior and being acted upon by greater forces or powers. We conclude that a cognitive linguistic approach to analyzing perceptions of danger within a specified genre of religious discourse can be useful in producing a picture of how an individual religious believer within a particular context and moment in time views reality, their position within it, and their progression through it.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
  • 3.The data
  • 4.Categorization of keyword occurrences in the dhamma talks
    • Dangers of attachment
    • Fear of physical harm
    • People as a source of danger
    • The potential danger of truth and absolute authority
  • 5.Categorization of keyword occurrences in MacArthur’s sermons
    • God as a source of fear and danger
    • Faith regardless of danger
    • Danger of judgment
    • Threat from unbelievers
  • 6.Analysis of metaphors in the dhamma talk paragraphs
    • Conceptual metaphors of attachment and detachment
    • Conceptual metaphors of movement versus motionlessness
    • Patterns of agency in movement metaphors
  • 7.Comparative analysis of metaphors in the sermon paragraphs
    • Conceptual metaphors of attachment and detachment
    • Conceptual metaphors of movement versus motionlessness
    • Patterns of agency in movement metaphors
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (41)
References
Beck, U. (2010). A God of one’s own. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bible Gateway (King James Version). Retrieved from [URL]
Cameron, L. (2011). Metaphor and reconciliation: The discourse dynamics of empathy in post-conflict conversations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coleman, L. (1980). The language of “born-again” Christianity. In Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkley Linguistics Society (pp. 133–142). Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Douglas, M. (1993). In the wilderness: The doctrine of defilement in the book of numbers. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1966). Purity and Danger: An analysis of the concept of pollution and taboo. New York: Routledge Classics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2002). Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the morning calm. The Linguistic Society of Korea. (pp. 111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geertz, C. (1993). Religion as a cultural system. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays (pp. 87–125). London: Fontana Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentner, D. & Bowdle, B. F. (2001). Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3), 223–247.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, Jr., R. W. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, Jr., R. W. & Colston, H. L. (2012). Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S. (2008). How metaphors create categories – quickly. In Gibbs, Jr. R. W. (Ed.). The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 67–83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ito, T. (2012). Modern Thai Buddhism and Buddhad as a Bhikkhu. Singapore: National University of Singapore. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kinnvall, C. and Nesbitt-Larking, P. (2011). The political psychology of globalization: Muslims in the West. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2000). Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Language, mind, and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). The biblical story retold: A cognitive linguistic perspective. In M. Brdar, S. T. Gries, & Fuchs, M. Z. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics. Convergence and expansion (pp. 325–353). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Where metaphors come from. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 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
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacArthur, J. (2012). The truth about grace. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). The truth war: Fighting for certainty in an age of deception. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Website: Grace to you. [URL]
Macmillan Dictionary. Retrieved from [URL]
Pihlaja, S. (2014). Antagonism on YouTube: Metaphor in online discourse. London: Bloomsbury.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
Schank, R. C. & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Semino, E., Deignan, A. & Littlemore, J. (2013). Metaphor, genre and recontexualization. Metaphor and Symbol, 28 (1), 41–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silvestre-López, A. J. & Navarro iFerrando, I. (2017). Metaphors in the conceptualization of meditative practices. Metaphor and the Social World, 7(1), 26–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G. (2008). The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 213–241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stockwell, P. (2002). Cognitive poetics: An introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu (2014). Dhamma talks 6 (ebook version). California: Meta Forest Monastery. Retrieved from dhammatalks.org.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Mueller, Charles M., Peter Richardson & Stephen Pihlaja
2024. A mental spaces analysis of religious identity discourse. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 22:2 ► pp. 541 ff. DOI logo
Richardson, Peter & Miori Nagashima
2022. Divine and human agency in figurative language from John’s Gospel and Jodo‑Shinshu Buddhism. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 9:2 ► pp. 243 ff. DOI logo
Richardson, Peter
2021. Cognition. In Analysing Religious Discourse, ► pp. 292 ff. DOI logo
RICHARDSON, PETER & CHARLES M. MUELLER
2019. Moving yet being still: exploring source domain reversal and force in explanations of enlightenment. Language and Cognition 11:2 ► pp. 310 ff. DOI logo
Kang, Byongchang
2018. Unifying Opposites through Metaphor: A Cognitive Approach to the Buddhist Metaphors for the Mind in the Awakening of Faith Discourse. Religions 9:11 ► pp. 345 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 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