Cover not available

Article published In: Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 16:2 (2018) ► pp.431–454

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

On metaphorical views, dynamite, and doodlings

Functions of domain adjectives in metaphorical domain constructions

 | Radboud University Nijmegen
 | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
 | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
 | University of Amsterdam
Published online: 5 November 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00017.rei
Abstract
This paper offers a systematic, bottom-up, investigation of the role of adjectives as metaphor signals in metaphorical domain constructions (MDCs) such as ‘budgetary anorexia’ and ‘economic crash’ within the framework of Deliberate Metaphor Theory (e.g., (2017). Deliberate Metaphor Theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues. Intercultural Pragmatics 14(1), 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). To this end, we analyse all MDCs in the VU Amsterdam Metaphor Corpus. Results of our analyses demonstrate that domain adjectives in MDCs do not by definition constitute signals of metaphor, and that not all nouns in MDCs are identified as potentially deliberate metaphors. We identify three different functions of domain adjectives: (1) signal of novel metaphor; (2) signal of conventional metaphor; (3) non-signal. The analyses in this paper provide new insights into both the role of domain adjectives in MDCs, and the position of MDCs as a typical manifestation of potentially deliberate metaphor.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Domain adjectives, MDCs, and deliberate metaphor
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Materials
    • 3.2Identification of MDCs
    • 3.3Identification of potentially deliberate metaphors
  • 4.Three functions of domain adjectives in MDCs
    • 4.1Function 1: The domain adjective as signal of novel metaphor
    • 4.2Function 2: The domain adjective as domain differentiator
    • 4.3Function 3: Domain adjectives as signals of conventional metaphor
  • 5.Conclusion and discussion
  • Notes
  • References
References (39)
References
Beger, A. (2011). Deliberate metaphors?: An exploration of the choice and functions of metaphors in US-American College lectures. Metaphorik.de, 201, 39–60.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron, L. (1999). Operationalising ‘metaphor’ for applied linguistic research. In L. Cameron & G. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (pp. 3–28). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crisp, P., Heywood, J., & Steen, G. J. (2002). Metaphor identification and analysis, classification and quantification. Language and Literature, 11(1), 55–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ernst, T. (1981). Grist for the linguistic mill: Idioms and “extra” adjectives. Journal of Linguistic Research, 1(3), 51–68.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2015a). Do pragmatic signals affect conventional metaphor understanding?: A failed test of deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 901, 77–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015b). Does deliberate metaphor theory have a future? Journal of Pragmatics, 901, 73–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goatly, A. (1997). The language of metaphors. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hanks, P. (2004). The syntagmatics of metaphor and idiom. International Journal of Lexicography, 17(3), 245–274. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hertzberger, R. (2013). Economen hebben geen flauw benul [Economists haven’t got a clue]. NRC Handelsblad, March 2. Retrieved from: [URL].
Krennmayr, T. (2011). Metaphors in newspapers. Utrecht: LOT.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
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macmillan English Dictionary Online. July 2016. [URL]
Moshinsky, B. (2016). Get ready for an economic crash if Britain leaves the EU. Business Insider UK, May 23. Retrieved from: [URL].
Musolff, A. (2004). Metaphor and political discourse: Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pasma, T. (2011). Metaphor and register variation: The personalisation of Dutch news discourse. Oisterwijk: Box Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perrez, J., & Reuchamps, M. (2014). Deliberate metaphors in political discourse: The case of citizen discourse. Metaphorik.de, 251, 7–41.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
Reijnierse, W. G., Burgers, C., Krennmayr, T., & Steen, G. J. (2018). DMIP: A method for identifying potentially deliberate metaphor in language use. Corpus Pragmatics, 2(2), 129–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Semino, E., Heywood, J., & Short, M. (2004). Methodological problems in the analysis of metaphors in a corpus of conversations about cancer. Journal of Pragmatics, 361, 1271–1294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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
(2011a). From three dimensions to five steps: The value of deliberate metaphor. Metaphorik.de, 211, 83–110.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011b). The contemporary theory of metaphor: Now new and improved! Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 26–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Developing, testing and interpreting deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 901, 67–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Mixed metaphor is a question of deliberateness. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), Mixing metaphor (pp. 113–132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Deliberate Metaphor Theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues. Intercultural Pragmatics 14(1), 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. 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
Sweetser, E. (1999). Compositionality and blending: Semantic composition in a cognitively realistic framework. In T. Janssen & G. Redeker (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope and methodology (pp. 129–162). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turner, M. (1991). Reading minds: The study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Reijnierse, W. Gudrun & Christian Burgers
2023. MSDIP: A Method for Coding Source Domains in Metaphor Analysis. Metaphor and Symbol 38:4 ► pp. 295 ff. DOI logo
DÍAZ-PERALTA, MARINA
2021. Gramática cognitiva y representación del mundo femenino en el discurso político español de finales del siglo XIX. Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 98:6 ► pp. 531 ff. DOI logo
Reijnierse, W. Gudrun, Christian Burgers, Marianna Bolognesi & Tina Krennmayr
2019. How Polysemy Affects Concreteness Ratings: The Case of Metaphor. Cognitive Science 43:8 DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Slowing Metaphor Down [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research, 26], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 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