In:Drawing Attention to Metaphor: Case studies across time periods, cultures and modalities
Edited by Camilla Di Biase-Dyson and Markus Egg
[Figurative Thought and Language 5] 2020
► pp. 39–62
A typological framework of attention-drawing strategies for Ancient Egyptian metaphorical language
Published online: 8 April 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.5.03dib
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.5.03dib
Abstract
This contribution proposes a typology of attention-drawing strategies for Ancient
Egyptian that is based on qualitative and quantitative analyses of texts from
three genres: wisdom literature, letters and narrative. The focus is on the
criteria for attention-drawing that may operate in a language like Egyptian, as
compared, for example, to English. After outlining the means by which the Egyptian
text corpus can be annotated, it is argued that metaphors can be marked at the
graphemic level (where categorisation plays a role), the phonemic level (where
word play can be important), the lexical-semantic level (which considers
co-textual features), the syntactic level (where metaphors are signalled), the
text-structure level (in which metaphor patterns are significant) and the
pragmatic level (where the reader/hearer is involved). Many metaphors in the
examples exemplify a number of these markings simultaneously, further emphasising
their attention-drawing potential.
Article outline
- 1.The point of departure
- 2.Criteria
- 3.Method
- 3.1Corpus annotation
- 4.A multidimensional typology
- 4.1Graphemic strategies
- 4.2Phonemic strategies
- 4.3Semantic strategies
- 4.4Syntactic strategies
- 4.5Text structure strategies
- 4.6Pragmatic strategies
- 5.The role of genre
- 6.Other quantitative approaches
- 7.Looking outwards
Acknowledgments Notes References
References (57)
References
Beger, A. (2011). Deliberate
metaphors? An exploration of the choice and functions of metaphors in
US-American college
lectures. metaphorik.de, 20, 39–60.
Blackman, A. M. (1932/1972). Middle-Egyptian
stories (Repr.
ed.), (Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca
2). Brussels: Éditions de la Fondation Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth.
Brdar, M., Zlomislić, J., Šoštarić, B. & Vančura, A. (2009). From
metaphorical banana skins to metonymic rittbergers: On two types of
polysemy. In M. Brdar, M. Omazić & V. Pavičić Takač (Eds.), Cognitive
approaches to English: Fundamental, methodological, interdisciplinary and
applied
aspects (pp. 151–169). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Chantrain, G. (2014). The
use of classifiers in the New Kingdom. A global reorganization of the
classifiers system? Lingua
Aegyptia, 22, 39–59.
Chantrain, G. &Di Biase-Dyson, C. (2018). Making
a case for multidimensionality in Ramesside figurative
language. In D. A. Werning (Ed.), Proceedings
of the Fifth International Conference on Egyptian-Coptic
Linguistics (Crossroads
V), (Lingua Aegyptia
25), (pp. 41–66). Hamburg: Widmaier.
Cienki, A. (2013). Conceptual
metaphor theory in light of research on speakers’
gestures. Journal of Cognitive
Semiotics, 5(1–2), 349–366.
Cameron, L. (2008). Metaphor
and
talk. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The
Cambridge handbook of metaphor and
thought (pp 197–211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, L. & Deignan, A. (2003). Combining
large and small corpora to investigate tuning devices around metaphor in
spoken discourse. Metaphor and
Symbol, 18(3), 149–60.
Cognitive
Linguistics
Group. (1991). Master
Metaphor List (2nd
ed.). Berkeley: University of California, [URL], accessed 01.06.2015.
Deignan, A. (2011). Deliberateness
is not unique to metaphor. A response to
Gibbs. Metaphor and the Social
World, 1(1), 57–60.
Di Biase-Dyson, C. (2016). Spatial
metaphors as rhetorical figures. Case studies from wisdom texts of the
Egyptian New
Kingdom. In F. Horn & C. Breytenbach (Eds.), Spatial
metaphorsSpatial metaphors. Texts and
transformations (Berlin Studies of the Ancient
World
39), (pp. 43–65). Berlin: Edition Topoi.
Di Biase-Dyson, C. (2017a). A
nautical metaphor for obedience and a likely case of negated disjunction
in
Egyptian. In C. Di Biase-Dyson, L. Donovan, et al. (Eds.), The
cultural manifestations of religious experience. Studies in honour of
Boyo G. Ockinga (Ägypten und Altes Testament
85), (pp. 355–362). Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Di Biase-Dyson, C. (2017b). Metaphor
in ‘The Teaching of Menena’. Between rhetorical innovation and
tradition. In T. Gillen (Ed.), (Re)productive
traditions in Ancient Egypt. Proceedings of the conference held at the
University of Liège, 6th–8th February
2013 (Aegyptiaca Leodiensia
10), (pp. 163–179). Liège: Presses universitaires de Liège.
Di Biase-Dyson, C., Kammerzell, F. & Werning, D. A. (2009). Glossing
Ancient Egyptian. Suggestions for adapting the Leipzig Glossing
Rules. In M. Müller & S. Uljas (Eds.), Proceedings
of Crossroads IV, Conference of Egyptian Language Studies, Basel, March
2009 (Lingua Aegyptia
17), (pp. 343–366). Göttingen: Seminar für Ägyptologie und Koptologie.
Fischer-Elfert, H.-W. (1983). Die
satirische Streitschrift des Papyrus Anastasi I.
Text (Kleine Ägyptische
Texte). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Fischer-Elfert, H.-W. (1986). Die
satirische Streitschrift des Papyrus Anastasi I. Übersetzung und
Kommentar (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen
44). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Gardiner, A. H. (1932). Late
Egyptian stories (Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca
1). Brussels: Éditions de la Fondation Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth.
Gardiner, A. H. (1957). Egyptian
grammar: Being an introduction to the study of
hieroglyphs (3rd
ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gentner, D. (1982). Are
scientific analogies
metaphors? In D. S. Miall (Ed.), Metaphor:
Problems and
perspectives (pp. 106–132). Hassocks: Harvester Press Ltd.
Gibbs, R. W. (2011). Are
‘deliberate’ metaphors really deliberate? A question of human
consciousness and action. Metaphor and the
Social
World, 1(1), 26–52.
Goosens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy:
The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic
action. Cognitive
Linguistics 1(3), 323–340.
Guglielmi, W. (1983). Eine
‘Lehre’ für einen reiselustigen Sohn (Ostrakon Oriental Institute
12074). Die Welt des
Orients, 14, 147–166.
Kammerzell, F. (1998). The
sounds of a dead language. Reconstructing Egyptian
phonology. Göttinger Beiträge zur
Sprachwissenschaft, 1, 21–41.
Krennmayr, T. (2011). Metaphor
in newspapers (Dissertation
Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam). Utrecht: LOT.
Kitchen, K. A.KRI = Kitchen, K. A. (1969–1983). Ramesside
inscriptions: Historical and biographical (8
Vols). Oxford: B.H. Blackwell.
Laisney, V. P.-M. (2007). L’enseignement
d’Aménémopé. Studia Pohl: Series Maior
19. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico.
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. (1989). More
than cool reason: A field guide to poetic
metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lincke, E.-S. & Kutscher, S. (2012). Motivated
sign formation in hieroglyphic Egyptian and German sign language (DGS):
Towards a typology of iconic signs in visual linguistic
systems. In E. Grossman, S. Polis & J. Winand (Eds.), Lexical
semantics in ancient Egyptian (Lingua Aegyptia
Studia Monographica
9), (pp. 113–140). Hamburg: Widmaier.
Loprieno, A. (1995). Ancient
Egyptian: A Linguistic
introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mittelberg, I. & Waugh, L. R. (2009). Metonymy
first, metaphor second: A cognitive-semiotic approach to multimodal
figures of thought in co-speech
gesture. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal
metaphor (pp 329–356). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Müller, C. (2008a). Metaphors
dead and alive, sleeping and waking. A dynamic
view. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Müller, C. (2008b). What
gestures reveal about the nature of
metaphor. In A. Cienki & C. Müller (Eds.), Metaphor
and
gesture (pp 219–245). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Müller, C. (2011). Are
‘deliberate metaphors’ really deliberate? A question of human
consciousness and action. Metaphor and the
Social
World, 1(1), 61–66.
Panther, K.-U. & Radden, G. (Eds.). (1999). Metonymy
in language and thought. Human Cognitive Processing 4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Polis, St., Honnay, A.-C. & Winand, J. (2013). Building
an annotated corpus of Late Egyptian. The Ramsès project: Review and
perspectives. In St. Polis & J. Winand (Eds.), Texts,
languages & information technology in Egyptology. Selected papers
from the meeting of the Computer Working Group of the International
Association of Egyptologists (Informatique & Égyptologie), Liège, 6–8
July
2010 (pp. 25–44). Liège: Presses Universitaires de Liège.
Shen, Y. & Balaban, N. (1999). Metaphorical
(in)coherence in discourse. Discourse
Processes 28(2), 139–154.
Stauder, A. (2018). Staging
restricted knowledge. The sculptor Irtysen’s self-presentation (ca. 2000
BC). In G. Miniaci, J. C. Moreno García, S. Quirke & A. Stauder (Eds.), The
arts of making in Ancient Egypt. Voices, images, and objects of material
producers 2000–1550
BC (pp. 239-271). Leiden: Sidestone Press.
Steen, G. J. (2008). The
paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of
metaphor. Metaphor and
Symbol, 23, 213–241.
Steen, G. J. (2011a). From
three dimensions to five steps: The value of deliberate
metaphor. metaphorik.de, 21, 83–110.
Steen, G. J. (2011b). What
does ‘really deliberate really mean? More thoughts on metaphor and
consciousness and action. Metaphor and the
Social
World, 1(1), 53–56.
Steen, G. J. (2015). Developing,
testing and interpreting Deliberate Metaphor
Theory. Journal of
Pragmatics, 90, 67–72,
Steen, G. J. (2017). Attention
to metaphor: Where embodied cognition and social interaction can meet,
but may not often do
so. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor:
Embodied cognition and
discourse (pp. 279–296). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T. & Pasma, T. (2010a). A
method for linguistic metaphor
identification (Converging Evidence in Language
and Communication Research
14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A. & Krennmayr, T. (2010b). Metaphor
in usage. Cognitive
Linguistics, 21(4), 765–796.
Vittmann, G. (1999). Altägyptische
Wegmetaphorik (Beiträge zur Ägyptologie
15). Vienna: Veröffentlichungen der Institute für Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie der Universität Wien 83.
Wallington, A. M., Barnden, J. A., Barnden, M. A., Ferguson, F. J. & Glaseby, S. R. (2003). Metaphoricity
signals: A corpus-based
investigation. Technical
Report CSRP-03-05, School of Computer Science, The University of Birmingham, U.K. [URL], accessed 01.06.2016.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
[no author supplied]
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.
