Article published In: Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 18:1 (2020) ► pp.112–130
An extended view of conceptual metaphor theory
Published online: 17 August 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00053.kov
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00053.kov
Abstract
A major insight of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) is that it added a strong, empirically testable cognitive
dimension to the study of metaphor that is capable of changing the way we think about metaphor not only in language, but also
thought and action, and, ultimately, the way we do philosophy (Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press., (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.). In the paper, I argue that CMT itself needs to be changed in
several ways. In particular, I suggest (1) that it has to be given a much more elaborate contextual component than is currently
available, (2) that even its cognitive dimension needs to be refined, (3) that it requires a component that can explain the actual
usages of metaphors in natural discourse, and (4), and most significantly, that it needs to be changed in such a way that the
modifications under (1), (2), and (3) can be integrated into a unified and coherent theory of metaphor. The paper is based on my
forthcoming book Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory ( (2020). Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ).
Article outline
- 1.Introduction: Some outstanding issues in conceptual metaphor theory
- 2.A brief demonstration of the new view: An example
- 2.1Resemblance metaphors
- 3.Components of the new view
- 4.How do the cognitive and contextual components of metaphor work together?
- 5.Conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (28)
Barsalou, L. (1992). Cognitive psychology: An overview for cognitive scientists. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Clausner, T., & Croft, W. (1997). Productivity and schematicity in metaphors. Cognitive Science, 21(3), 247–282.
David, O., Lakoff, G., & Stickles, E. (2016). Cascades in metaphor and grammar. Constructions and Frames, 8(2), 214–255.
Evans, V. (2013). Language and time. A Cognitive Linguistics approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (2017). The embodied and discourse views of metaphor: Why these are not so different and how they can be brought closer together. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor. Embodied cognition and discourse (pp. 319–335). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grady, J. E. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
(1999). A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor. In R. Gibbs & G. Steen, (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kövecses, Z. (1995). American friendship and the scope of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 6(4), 315–346.
(2010). A new look at metaphorical creativity in cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(4), 663–697.
(2015). Where metaphors come from. Reconsidering the role of context in metaphor. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. Second edition. (pp. 202–251). Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Pérez, L. (2011). The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, de- velopments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 261, 161–185.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2020). Understanding figures of speech: Dependency relations and organizational patterns. Language & Communication, 711, 16–38.
Steen, G. (2008). The paradox of metaphor. Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 213–241.
(2011). The contemporary theory of metaphor – Now new and improved! Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 26–64.
Cited by (37)
Cited by 37 other publications
Friedrich, Jannis, Martin H. Fischer & Markus Raab
Gaskins, Dorota K.
Issa, Muhammad & Shumaila Shafket Ali
Lai, Yun-Sxin & Ying-Ying Tan
Yildiz, Mete & Dilek Dede
Akkaraca Kose, Melike & Ruth Breeze
Gaskins, Dorota
Kara, Serpil, Mustafa B. Aktan & Sevgi Kıngır
Nikolaienko, Valeriia
Nikolaienko, Valeriia
Rana, Arooj, Tahir Ayoub, Shazia Akbar Ghilzai, Wasima Shehzad & Ramona Bongelli
Reda, Ghsoon
Schumann, Chiara
Tanihu, Jonathan & Samuel Alhassan Issah
Wang, Xunian & Yi Sun
Ye, Zhanglei & Jian Li
Aseel Zibin & Olga A. Solopova
Abdel-Raheem, Ahmed
Denroche, Charles
Denroche, Charles
Geeraerts, Dirk
Khatin-Zadeh, Omid, Danyal Farsani, Zahra Eskandari, Shan Li & Hassan Banaruee
Li, Heng & Yu Cao
Li, Heng & Yu Cao
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José
Xu, Qingshu
Zeng, Winnie Huiheng & Kathleen Ahrens
Devylder, Simon
Dyrmo, Tomasz
Dyrmo, Tomasz
Dyrmo, Tomasz
Khachmafova, Zaineta, Tatiana Ostrovskaya, Elena Skhalyakho, D. Rudoy, A. Olshevskaya & N. Ugrekhelidze
Pobegaylov, Oleg, D. Rudoy, A. Olshevskaya & N. Ugrekhelidze
Rossi, Micaela
2021. Marc Bonhomme, Anne-Marie Paillet & Philippe Wahl (éds). 2017. Métaphore et argumentation (Paris : L’Harmattan) | Paola Paissa, Michelangelo Conoscenti, Ruggero Druetta & Martin Solly (eds). 2020. Metaphor and Conflict. Métaphore et conflit (Berne : P. Lang). Argumentation et analyse du discours 27
Wen, Xu & Chuanhong Chen
2021. Cultural conceptualisations ofloong(龙) in Chinese idioms. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 19:2 ► pp. 563 ff.
[no author supplied]
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.