Cover not available

Article published In: Terminology
Vol. 26:2 (2020) ► pp.237–264

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

Multidimensionality, dynamicity, and complexity

A reconsideration of the functions of metaphorical terms

 | China Pharmaceutical University
 | Nanjing University
Published online: 4 December 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/term.00052.jia
Abstract
With the cognitive shift since the 1990s, metaphorical terms have become a recurrent theme in terminological studies. However, how they actually function in science communication has not been fully explored. The issue becomes more pressing today since the exponential expansion of knowledge has heightened our awareness of the need for new designations. And the metaphorical approach is often an economic choice. To gain more insights into the mechanism of metaphorical terms, the authors of the present study will reexamine their functional peculiarities by looking at their linguistic, cognitive and communicative facets respectively. The multidimensional functions of metaphorical terms as exemplified by those in economics are described in detail. More importantly, their dynamic functional potentialities as well as the interplay among them are further discussed.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Multidimensionality: Functions of a metaphorical term as a polyhedron
    • 2.1Linguistic function: Plugging lexical gaps with linguistic economy
    • 2.2Cognitive function: Reducing the comprehension and memory load
    • 2.3Communicative function: Enhancing pragmatic effects with undertones
  • 3.Dynamicity: Multivalent functional potentialities of a metaphorical term
    • 3.1Linguistic functional potentiality in term formation
    • 3.2Cognitive functional potentiality in theory construction
    • 3.3Communicative functional potentiality in discursive rhetoric
  • 4.Complexity: Situational interplay of different functional facets
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
References (50)
References
Becker, Gary S. 1964. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bies, Werner. 1996. “Thinking with the help of images: on the metaphors of knowledge organization.” Knowledge Organization 23(1), 3–8. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard. 1993. “Metaphor and theory change: What is ‘metaphor’ a metaphor for?” In Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony, 481–532. New York: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2009. “Metaphor and political communication”. In Metaphor and Discourse, ed. by Andreas Musolff, and Jörg Zinken, 97–115. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Condamines, Anne. 2017. “The emotional dimension in terminological variation: The example of transitivization of the locative complement in fishing”. In Multiple Perspectives on Terminological Variation, ed. by Patrick Drouin, Aline Francœur, John Humbley, and Aurelié Picton, 11–30. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuadrado, Georgina, and Pilar Durán. 2013. “Proposal for a semantic hierarchy of terminological metaphors in science and technology”. International Journal of English Linguistics 3(4): 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dion, Delphine, and Gérald Mazzalov. 2016. “Reviving sleeping beauty brands by rearticulating brand heritage”. Journal of Business Research 69(12): 5894–5900. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Escribano, P. Durán, and Irina A. Álvarez. 2016. “Cross-disciplinary metaphorical meaning extension in the creation of new scientific terms”. Beyond the Universe of Languages for Specific Purposes: The 21st century perspective: 107–110.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faber, Pamela. et al. 2014. “Neural substrates of specialized knowledge representation: an fMRI study”. Revue française de linguistique appliquée 19(1): 15–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faber, Pamela, and Carlos Márquez Linares. 2004. “The role of imagery in specialized communication”. In Imagery in Language, ed. by Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Alina Kwiatkowska, 585–602. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. “A three-level model of metaphor for specialized communication”. Translationswissenschaft im interdisziplinären Dialog: 71–94.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faber, Pamela. 2012. “Conclusion”. In A Cognitive Linguistics View of Terminology and Specialized Language, ed. by Pamela Faber, 249–258. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faber, Pamela, and Antonio S. M. Pizarro. 2012. “Specialized language pragmatics”. In A Cognitive Linguistics View of Terminology and Specialized Language, ed. by Pamela Faber, 177–203. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Felber, Helmut. 1984. Terminology Manual. Paris: UNESCO & INFOTERM.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Finatto, M. J. Bocorny. 2010. “Metaphors in scientific and technical languages: Challenges and perspective”. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada 261(SPE): 645–656. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frezza, Giulia, and Elena Gagliasso. 2017. “Building metaphors: Constitutive narratives in science”. In Metaphor in Communication, Science and Education, ed. by Francesca Ervas, Elisabetta Gola, and Maria G. Rossi, 199–216. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goatly, Andrew. 1997. The Language of Metaphors. London/New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Han, Jing. 2009. “A sketch of games of translation”. Journal of Language and Literature (4): 65–66.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1993. “The contemporary theory of metaphor”. In Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony, 202–251. New York: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meyer, Ingrid, Victoria Zaluski, and Kristen MacIntosh. 1997. “Metaphorical Internet terms: a conceptual and structural analysis.” Terminology 4(1): 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morgenstern, Oskar, and John Von Neumann. 1953. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prandi, Michele. 2010. “Typology of Metaphors: Implications for Translation.” Mutatis Mutandis: Revista Latinoamericana de Traducción 3(2): 304–332.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reeves, Carol. 2005. The Language of Science. London/New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Resche, Catherine. 2001. “Equivocal Economic Terms or Terminology Revisited.” Meta, 45 (1): 158–173. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. “Towards a better understanding of metaphorical networks in the language of economics: The importance of theory-constitutive metaphors.” In Metaphor and Mills: Figurative Language in Business and Economics, ed. by Honesto Herrera-Soler, and Michael White, 77–102. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Economic Terms and Beyond: Capitalising on the Wealth of Notions. Bern: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Richardt, Susanne. 2005. Metaphor in Languages for Special Purposes: The Function of Conceptual Metaphor in Written Expert Language and Expert-Lay Communication in the Domains of Economics, Medicine and Computing. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rossi, Micaela. 2017a. “Terminological metaphors and the nomadism of specialized terms: Some observations on intralinguistic and interlinguistic variation”. In Multiple Perspectives on Terminological Variation, ed. by Patrick Drouin, Aline Francœur, John Humbley, and Aurelié Picton, 181–211. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017b. “Some observations about metaphors in specialised languages”. In Metaphor in Communication, Science and Education, ed. by Francesca Ervas, Elisabetta Gola, and Maria G. Rossi, 151–168. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sager, Juan. C. 1990. A Practical Course in Terminology Processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sánchez, M. Tercedor, Clara I. L. Rodríguez, Carlos Márquez Linares, and Pamela Faber. 2012. “Metaphor and metonymy in specialized language”. In Faber, P. (eds.). 64–102. A Cognitive Linguistics View of Terminology and Specialized Language. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schultz, Theodore W. 1961. “Investment in human capital”. The American Economic Review 51(1): 1–17.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shumeli, Arjan, Esmeralda Sotiri, and Rajmonda Novaku. 2012. “A comparative analysis of term-formation in the field of earth sciences: Terminologization and reterminologization”. ANGLISTICUM. Journal of the Association for Anglo-American Studies 1(2): 37–43.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. 1776. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London: W. Stahan & T. Cadell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Temmerman, Rita. 1997. “Questioning the univocity ideal. The difference between socio-cognitive terminology and traditional terminology”. HERMES-Journal of Language and Communication in Business 10(18): 51–90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Towards New Ways of Terminology Description. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. “Metaphorical models and the translator’s approach to scientific texts”. Linguistica Antverpiensia. New Series-Themes in Translation Studies (1): 211–226.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ureña, J. Manuel. 2011. Metaphor in Specialised Language: An English-Spanish Comparative Study. Granada: University of Granada.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. “Conceptual types of terminological metaphors in marine biology: An English-Spanish contrastive analysis from an experientialist perspective”. In Metaphor in Use: Context, Culture and Communication, ed. by MacArthur, F. et al., 239–260. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, Bin. 2004. “Translation and games”. Journal of University of Shanghai for Science and Technology (2): 25–29.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
White, Michael. 2003. “Metaphor and Economics: The Case of Growth”. English for Specific Purposes 22(2): 131–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Liu, Yujing & Xiangqing Wei
2023. From “three doors” to “one revolving door”. Terminology. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication 29:1 ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 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