Cover not available

Article published In: Cognitive Approaches to Mind, Language, and Society: Theory and description
Edited by Mario Serrano-Losada and Daniela Pettersson-Traba
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies 11:1] 2024
► pp. 8–33

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required
Theoretical approaches to figurative language

Metaphor as a resemblance phenomenon

A re-examination of the role of similarity in conceptual metaphor

ORCiD logo with link | Universidad de La Rioja
Published online: 6 June 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00110.rui
Abstract
Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) departed from tradition in metaphor studies by treating this phenomenon as an ordinary one used in everyday reasoning. From its inception, this theory made emphasis on the role of experiential correlation in accounting for metaphorical thought to the detriment of its long-standing treatment in terms of similarity. This experientialist thesis was later strengthened by making it part of a broader theoretical framework that treated correlation metaphor as an embodied phenomenon where an essential part of its role in reasoning was due to its ability to give rise to conceptual conflation. Against the background provided by this theoretical context, this article reexamines the role of correlation, conflation, and embodiment in terms of two distinctions: low and high-level similarity, on the one hand, and structural and non-structural similarity, on the other hand. The analytical categories that support these distinctions are used to provide an improved understanding of the nature of metaphorical thought, including correlation metaphor, structural metaphor, several forms of analogy, synesthetic metaphor, and metaphorical amalgams.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Conceptual metaphor theory
    • 2.1Correlation versus similarity
    • 2.2Experiential correlation in metaphorical reasoning
  • 3.Revisiting experiential correlation
    • 3.1Correlation and metonymy
    • 3.2Differences between correlation metonymy and metaphor
  • 4.The role of structural similarity in metaphor
    • 4.1Non-eventive structural similarity
    • 4.2Eventive structural similarity
  • 5.Mediated structural similarity
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (36)
References
Barcelona, A. (2018). General description of the metonymy database in the Córdoba project, with particular attention to the issues of hierarchy, prototypicality, and taxonomic domains. In O. Blanco-Carrión, A. Barcelona & R. Pannain (Eds.), Conceptual metonymy: Methodological, theoretical, and descriptive issues (pp. 27–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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
Bhatt, R. (1999). Ability modals and their actuality entailments. In K. N. Shahin, S. Blake & E.-S. Kim (Eds.), The proceedings of the 17th West Coast Conference on formal linguistics (pp. 74–87). CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bond, B., & Stevens, S. S. (1969). Cross-modality matching of brightness to loudness by 5-year-olds. Perception & Psychophysics, 6(6A), 337–339. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Casasanto, D., & Gijssels, T. (2015). What makes a metaphor an embodied metaphor?. Linguistics Vanguard, 1(1), 327–337. 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. 57–92). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dupriez, B. (1991). A dictionary of literary devices: Gradus, A-Z. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, Jr. R. W. (2006). Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind and Language, 21(3), 434–458. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Embodied metaphor. In J. Littlemore & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 167–184). London: Blooomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grady, J. E. (1997). Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. & G. J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grady, J. E., & Ascoli, G. A. (2017). Sources and targets in primary metaphor theory: Looking back and thinking ahead. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse (pp. 27–45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1971). Implicative verbs. Language, 47(2), 340–358. 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
(2008). The neural theory of metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 17–38). New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: Metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 81, Article 958. 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
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1969). A linguistic guide to English poetry. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (1999). The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 333–357). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peña-Cervel, M. S., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2022). Figuring out figuration: A cognitive linguistic account. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plümacher, M. (2007). Color perception, color description and metaphor. In M. Plümacher & P. Holz (Eds.), Speaking of colors and odors (pp. 61–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rich, A. N., & Mattingley, J. B. (2002). Anomalous perception in synaesthesia: A cognitive neuroscience perspective. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 31, 43–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2017). Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: From basicity to complexity. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse (pp. 138–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Understanding figures of speech: Dependency relations and organizational patterns. Language & Communication, 711, 16–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Ten lectures on cognitive modeling: Between grammar and language-based inferencing. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022). Analogical and non-analogical resemblance in figurative language: A cognitive-linguistic perspective. In S. Wuppuluri & A. C. Grayling (Eds.), Metaphors and analogies in sciences and humanities (pp. 269–293). Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Masegosa, A. G. (2014). Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Barreras Gómez, M. A. (2022). Linguistic and metalinguistic resemblance. In A. Bagasheva, B. Hristov & N. Tincheva (Eds.), Figurativity and human ecology (pp. 15–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez Hernández, L. (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints and interaction. Language & Communication, 21(4), 321–357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Santibáñez Sáenz, F. (1999). Semantic structure, relational networks, and domains of reference. Journal of English Studies, 11, 271–288. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shams, L., Kamitani, Y., & Shimojo, S. (2000). Illusions: What you see is what you hear. Nature, 4081, 788–788. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Strik Lievers, F. (2016). Synaesthetic metaphors in translation. Studi e Saggi Linguistici, 54(1), 43–69.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Figures and the senses: Towards a definition of synaesthesia. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 83–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winter, B. (2019). Synaesthetic metaphors are neither synaesthetic nor metaphorical. In L. J. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque & A. Majid (Eds.), Perceptual metaphors (pp. 105–126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue