Cover not available

In:Figurative Thought and Language in Action
Edited by Mario Brdar and Rita Brdar-Szabó
[Figurative Thought and Language 16] 2022
► pp. 19–36

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

Important challenges in the study of metaphors

Published online: 28 July 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.16.01gib
Abstract
The world of metaphor scholarship is amazingly diverse, involving a myriad of empirical methods and theoretical frameworks. This diversity is greatly appealing, given the enormous complexity of metaphorical thinking, language, and human action. This chapter identifies some challenges for metaphor scholars both in doing particular empirical work and in offering theoretical accounts of metaphor and its role in human life. These challenges focus on issues with metaphor identification, the meanings of metaphor in discourse, online metaphor processing, and the metaphorical character of source domains. I see these challenges as “matters for all of us to think about” as we try to explain both the regularities and variations in metaphorical thinking, language, and multimodal action.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Identifying metaphors: The view from nowhere?
  • 3.What meanings do people understand when they understand metaphor?
  • 4.Online, incremental metaphor processing
  • 5.The metaphorical essence of source domains
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
References (36)
References
Burgers, C., Brugman, B., Renardel de Lavalette, K., & Steen, G. (2016). HIP: A method for linguistic hyperbole identification in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 31, 163–178. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cardillo, E., Schmidt, G., Kranjec, A., & Chatterjee, A. (2010). Stimulus design is an obstacle course: 560 matched literal and metaphorical sentences for testing neural hypotheses about metaphor. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 651–664. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chiang, A., & Chiang, W-y. (2016). Behold, I am coming soon! A study of the conceptualization of sexual orgasm in 27 languages. Metaphor and Symbol, 31, 131–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, H. L. (2015). Using figurative language. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Csordas, Th. J. (Ed.) (1994). Embodiment and experience: The existential ground of culture and self. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2013). Functional constraints, usage, and mental grammars: A study of speakers’ intuitions about questions with long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Linguistics, 24, 633–665. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Divjak, D., Dąbrowska, E., & Arppe, A. (2016) Machine meets man: Evaluating the psychological reality of corpus-based probabilistic models. Cognitive Linguistics, 27, 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duffy, S.  (2014). The role of cultural artifacts in the interpretation of metaphorical expressions about time. Metaphor and Symbol, 29, 94–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duffy, S. & Feist, M. (2014). Individual differences in the interpretation of ambiguous statements about time. Cognitive Linguistics, 25, 29–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. (1980). Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation. Memory & Cognition, 8, 149–156. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1986). Skating on thin ice: Literal meaning and understanding idioms in conversation. Discourse Processes, 7, 17–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). The allegorical impulse. Metaphor and Symbol, 26, 121–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013a). Walking the walk while thinking about the talk: Embodied interpretation of metaphorical narratives. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 363–378. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Metaphor wars: Conceptual metaphor in human life. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R., & Cameron, L. (2007). Social-cognitive dynamics of metaphor performance. Cognitive Systems Research, 9, 64–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R., & Colston, H. (2012). Interpreting figurative meaning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R., & Santa Cruz, M. (2012). Temporal unfolding of conceptual metaphoric experience. Metaphor and Symbol, 27, 299–311. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R., Tendahl, M., & Okonski, L. (2011). Inferring pragmatic messages from metaphor. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 7, 3–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kok, K., & Cienki, A. (2017). Taking simulation semantics out of the laboratory: Towards an interactive and multimodal reappraisal of embodied language comprehension. Language & Cognition, 7, 1–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Okonski, L., & Gibbs, R. (2019). Diving into the wreck: Can people resist allegorical meaning? Journal of Pragmatics, 141, 28–43. 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, 1–40.
Reijnierse, G., Burgers, C., Krennmayr, T., & Steen, G. (2018). DMIP: A method for identifying potentially deliberate metaphor in language use. Corpus Pragmatics, 2, 129–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffman, H. (2011). Sensation and perception: An integrative approach. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Semino, E. (2010). Descriptions of pain, metaphor, and embodied simulation. Metaphor and Symbol, 25, 205–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shapiro, J., & D’Espisito, M. (2016). The segregation and integration of distinct brain networks and their relations to cognition. Journal of Neuroscience, 36, 12083–12094. 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, 213–241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G., Dorst, A., Herrmann, J., 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. (2011). Constructional preemption by contextual mismatch: A corpus-linguistic investigation. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(1), 107–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tendahl, M., & Gibbs, R. (2008). Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(11), 1823–1864. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thibodeau, P., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS ONE, 6(2), e16782. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Xiao, Deming
2024. Review of Tay (2022): Navigating the realities of metaphor and psychotherapy research. Metaphor and the Social World 14:1 ► pp. 163 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 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