In:How Metaphors Guide, Teach and Popularize Science
Edited by Anke Beger and Thomas H. Smith
[Figurative Thought and Language 6] 2020
► pp. 1–37
Get fulltext
Chapter 1Introduction
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Published online: 22 April 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.6.01beg
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.6.01beg
Abstract
In this introduction, we start by providing an overview of how metaphor makes science accessible (§ 1). The first part describes the intended readership of this book and introduces them
to studies of metaphor in science. We then provide the theoretical foundation for the study of metaphor in science that all of
the contributions in this volume are based on: Conceptual Metaphor Theory (§ 2). The
third part (§ 3) introduces the three interrelated functions or levels of metaphor that
are vital for making science accessible: language, thought, and communication. An overview of contributions to this volume
concludes this chapter (§ 4).
Article outline
- 1.How metaphor makes science accessible
- 1.1Accessible to whom? Intended readership of this book
- 1.2An overview of the study of metaphor in science
- 2.Theoretical foundations for the study of metaphor in science
- 2.1Main tenets of Conceptual Metaphor Theory
- 2.1.1Conceptual Metaphor Theory: Main tenets and assumptions
- 2.1.2Criticism of CMT and alternative approaches
- 2.1Main tenets of Conceptual Metaphor Theory
- 3.Interrelated levels of metaphor in making science accessible: Linguistic, conceptual, and discourse functions
- 3.1Metaphor in language – the language function
- 3.1.1Conventionality and novelty
- 3.1.2Metaphor in a wider sense: Similes and analogies
- 3.2Metaphor in thought – the conceptual function
- 3.2.1Embodied metaphors
- 3.2.2Socio-cultural metaphors
- 3.2.3Source domain context or background knowledge
- 3.2.4Target domain context or background knowledge
- 3.2.5Abstract source domains
- 3.2.6Metaphors in combination
- 3.3Metaphor in communication – the discourse function
- 3.3.1Review of metaphor in communication as implied in theoretical discussions above
- 3.3.2The concept of ‘deliberate metaphor’
- 3.3.3Problems with ‘deliberate metaphor’ and alternative concepts
- 3.1Metaphor in language – the language function
- 4.Organization of this volume
Notes References
References (110)
Ashby, J., Roncero, C., de Almeida, R. G., & Agauas, S. J. (2018). The early processing of metaphors and similes: Evidence from eye movements. Quarterly Jounrnal of Experimental Psychology, 2(1), 161–168.
Beger, A. (2011). Deliberate metaphors? An exploration of the choice and functions of metaphors in US-American college
lectures. metaphorik.de, 20, 39–61.
(2016). Different functions of (deliberate) metaphor in teaching scientific concepts. In O. Jäkel, M. Döring & A. Beger (Eds.), Science and metaphor: A truly interdisciplinary perspective (metaphorik.de
, 26, special issue), 61–87.
(2019). The role of (deliberate) metaphor in communicating knowledge in academic discourse: An analysis of college
lectures from different disciplines (Doctoral Dissertation). Berlin: Peter Lang.
Beger, A. & Jäkel, O. (2015). The cognitive role of metaphor in teaching science: Examples from physics, chemistry, biology, psychology
and philosophy. Philosophical Inquiries, 3(1), 89–112.
Blumenberg, H., & Savage, R. I. (2010). Paradigms for a metaphorology. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Borghi, A., & Binkofski, F. (2015). Words as social tools: An embodied view on abstract concepts. New York: Springer.
Braun, M., Fernau, S., & Dabrock, P. (2018). Images of synthetic life: Mapping the use and function of metaphors in the public discourse on synthetic
biology. PLOS, Published: June 21, 2018 .
Brown, T. L. (2003). Making truth: Metaphor in science. Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Caballero, R. (2003). Metaphor and genre: The presence and role of metaphor in the building review. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 145–167.
(2010a). The discourse dynamics framework for metaphor. In L. Cameron & R. Maslen (Eds.), Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and the humanities (pp.77–97). London: Equinox.
(2010b). Metaphors and discourse activity. In L. Cameron & R. Maslen (Eds.), Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and the humanities (pp.147–161). London: Equinox.
(2015). Preface. In B. J. Herrmann, & T. Berber-Sardinha (Eds.), Metaphor in specialist discourse (pp.xi–xii). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cameron, L., & Low, G. (1999) (Eds). Researching and applying metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carston, R. (2010). Lexical pragmatics, ad hoc concepts and metaphor: A Relevance Theory perspective. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 22(1), 153–180.
(2012). Forensic deliberations on ‘purposeful metaphor’. Metaphor and the Social World, 2(1), 1–21.
Colston, H. L. & Gibbs, R. W. (2017). Metaphor processing. In E. Semino, & Z. Demjén (Eds), The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language (pp.457–472). London/New York: Routledge.
Deignan, A. (2012). Figurative language in discourse. In H. Schmidt (Ed.), Cognitive Pragmatics (pp.437–462). Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
Deignan, A., Littlemore, J., & Semino, E. (2013). Figurative language, genre and register. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drogosz, A. (2016). Darwin’s metaphors: A cognitive semantics analysis of the theory of evolution. Academic Journal of Modern Philology, 5, 31–45.
Ervas, F., Gola, E., & Rossi, M. G. (2017). Metaphor in communication, science and education. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
(2008). Rethinking metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 53–67). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Forceville, C. (2016). Pictorial and multimodal metaphor. In N. Klug, & H. Stöckl (Eds.), Handbuch Sprache im multimodalen Kontext (pp. 241–260). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Gentner, D (1982). Are scientific analogies metaphors? In D. Miall (Ed.), Metaphor: Problems and perspectives. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Harvester Press and Humanities Press.
Gentner, D., & B. Bowdle (2001). Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3&4), 223–247.
(2006). Psychology of metaphor processing. In L. Nadel (Ed.), The encyclopedia of cognitive science. New York: Macmillan.
Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P., & Boronat, C. (2001). Metaphor is like analogy. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp.199–253). Cambridge MA, MIT Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2015). Do pragmatic signals affect conventional metaphor understanding? A failed test of deliberate metaphor
theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 77–87.
(2016) (Ed.). Mixing metaphors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gibbs, R. W., & Cameron, L. (2008). The social-cognitive dynamics of metaphor performance. Cognitive Systems Research, 9, 64–75.
Gibbs, R. W., & Chen, E. (2018). Metaphor and the automatic mind. Metaphor & the Social World, 8(1), 40–63.
Gibbs, R. W., Colston, H. L. (2012). Interpreting figurative meaning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. & Matlock, T. (2008). Metaphor, imagination, and simulation: Psycholinguistic evidence. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.161–176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Giles, T. D. (2008). Motives for metaphor in scientific and technical communication. Amityville, New York: Baywood.
Giora, R. (2008). Is metaphor unique? In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.143–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2008). How metaphors create categories – quickly. In: R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.67–84). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glucksberg, S., & McGlone, M. S. (1993). Conceptual metaphors are not automatically accessed during idiom comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 21(5), 711–719.
Grady, J. E. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Ph.D Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Department of Linguistics.
Grassby, R. (2005). Material culture and cultural history. J. Interdisciplinary History, 35(4), 591–603.
Herrmann, B. J., & Berber-Sardinha, T. (2015). Metaphor in specialist discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Holyoak, K. J., & Stamenković, D. (2018). Metaphor comprehension: a critical review of theories and evidence. Psychol Bull, 144(6), 641–671.
Jamrozik, A., McQuire, M., Cardillo, R. R., & Chatterjee, A. (2016). Metaphor: Bridging embodiment to abstraction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 1080–1089.
Jäkel, O. (2003). Wie Metaphern Wissen schaffen: Die kognitive Metapherntheorie und ihre Anwendung in Modell-Analysen der
Diskursbereiche Geistestätigkeit, Wirtschaft, Wissenschaft und Religion (Philologia: Sprachwissenschaftliche Forschungsergebnisse 59). Hamburg: Dr. Kovac.
Johnson, M. (2007). The meaning of the body: Aesthetics of human understanding. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
(2005) Communicating novel and conventional scientific metaphors: A study of the development of the metaphor of
genetic code. Public Understanding of Science, 14(4), 373–392.
(2015). A mere metaphor? Framings of the concept of metaphor in biological specialist communication. In J. B. Herrmann, & T. B. Sardinha (Eds.), Metaphor in specialist discourse (pp.191–214). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Koller, V. (2003). Metaphor clusters, metaphor chains: analyzing the multifunctionality of metaphor in text. metaphorik.de, 05, 115–133.
Kretz, D. R. & Krawczyk, D. C. (2014). Expert analogy use in a naturalistic setting. Frontiers in Psychology. 5, p.1333. [URL].
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortony, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd edition) (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lederer, J. (2016). Finding metaphorical triggers through source (not target) domain lexicalization patterns, Proceedings of The Fourth Workshop on Metaphor in NLP, 1–9.
Letzer, R. (2018) Mysterious leptoquarks could bind both types of matter. That is, if they exist. [URL], accessed 25 Jan 2019.
Liu, D (2016). The cell and protoplasm as container, object, and substance, 1835–1861, J Hist Biol, 50(4), 889–925.
Määttänen, P. (2005). Meaning as use: Peirce and Wittgenstein. In F. Stadler, & M. Stöltzner (Eds.), Twenty-eighth international Wittgenstein symposium, ALWS archives, [URL], accessed 16 Jan 2019.
Miller, A. (2000). Metaphor and scientific creativity. In F. Hallyn (Ed.), Metaphor and analogy in the sciences (pp.147–164). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
McGlone, M. S. (1996). Conceptual metaphors and figurative language interpretation: Food for thought? Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 20–67.
Müller, C. (2008). Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking: A dynamic view. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(2017). Waking metaphors: Embodied cognition in multimodal discourse. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse (pp.297–317). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nacey, S. (2013). Metaphors in learner English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers.
Nerlich, B., Elliott R., & Larson, B. (2009). Communicating biological sciences: Ethical and metaphorical dimensions. Farnham: Ashgate.
Núñez, R. E. (2000). Conceptual metaphor and the embodied mind: What makes mathematics possible? In F. Hallyn (Ed.), Metaphor and analogy in the sciences (pp 125–145). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Oļehnoviča, I., & Liepa, S. (2016). The interplay of literal and metaphorical meanings in printed advertisement. Procedia – Social and behavioral sciences, 231, 25–31.
(1993). The role of similarities in similes and metaphors. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp.342–356). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ortony, A., & Fainsilber, L. (1987). The role of metaphors in descriptions of emotions. In Proceedings of the 1987 workshop on theoretical issues in natural language processing, TINLAP 1987 (pp.181–184). Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. .
Patterson, K. J. (2017). Lexical priming and metaphor – Evidence of nesting in metaphoric language. In M. Pace-Sigge, & K. J. Patterson (Eds.), Lexical priming: Applications and advances (pp.42–162). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Perrez, J., & Reuchamps, M. (2015). Deliberate metaphors in political discourse, Metaphor and the Social World, 5(2), 165–176.
Pragglejaz Group (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39.
Richland, L. E., Zur, O., & Holyoak, K. J. (2007). Cognitive supports for analogies in the mathematics classroom Science, 316, 1128–1129.
Schön, D. A. and Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.
(2011). The adaptation of metaphors across genres. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 130–152.
(2016). A corpus-based study of ‘mixed metaphor’ as a metalinguistic comment. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), Mixing metaphor (pp.203–223). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Semino, E., Deignan, A., & Littlemore, J. (2013). Metaphor, genre, and recontextualization. Metaphor and Symbol, 28, 41–59.
Semino, E., Demjén, Z., & Demmen, J. (2016). An integrated approach to metaphor and framing in cognition, discourse, and practice, with an application
to metaphors for cancer. Applied Linguistics (Advance Access), 1–22.
Shapiro, M. A. (1985). Analogies, visualization, and mental processing of science stories. Paper presented to the Information Systems Division of the International Communications Association, Honolulu, HI, May
1985.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2008). A deflationary account of metaphors. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.84–108). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, T. H. (2009). When experts educate, what do their metaphors say? Complex metaphor structure in the professional conflict
resolution literature, Ibérica: Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes (número monográfico sobre metáfora y lFE, special issue on metaphor and LSP), 17, 175–196.
(2015). Dynamical systems metaphors. In J. B. Herrmann, & T. B. Sardinha (Eds.), Metaphor in specialist discourse (pp.215–244). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Steen, G. J. (2008). The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23, 213–241.
(2010). When is metaphor deliberate? In C. Alm-Arvius, N.-L. Johannesson, & D. C. Minugh (Eds.), Selected papers from the 2008 Stockholm Metaphor Festival (pp.43–65). Stockholm: University of Stockholm.
(2011a). The contemporary theory of metaphor – now new and improved! Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 26–64.
(2011b). What does ‘really deliberate’ really mean?: More thoughts on metaphor and consciousness. Metaphor and the Social World, 1(1), 53–56.
(2015). Developing, testing and interpreting deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 67–72.
(2017a). Deliberate Metaphor Theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1), 1–24.
(2017b). 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.279–297). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, B. J., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Taylor, C., & Dewsbury, B. M. (2018). On the problem and promise of metaphor use in science and science communication. J Microbiol Biol Educ., 19(1), 46.
Thibodeau, P., Winneg, A., Frantz, C., & Flusberg, S. (2016). The mind is an ecosystem: Systemic metaphors promote systems thinking. Metaphor and the Social World, 6(2), 225–242.
Veale, T. & Keane, M. (1992). Conceptual scaffolding: A spatially founded meaning representation for metaphor
comprehension. Computational Intelligence, 8, 494–519.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Heuser, Stefan
Negrea-Busuioc, Elena, Diana Luiza Simion & Georgiana Udrea
Schumann, Chiara
[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.
