Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Metaphors for God: Why and How Do Our Choices Matter for Humans? The Application of Contemporary Cognitive Linguistics Research to the Debate on God and Metaphor

  • Published:
Pastoral Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article explores and critiques conservative and liberal theological understandings of metaphor in light of the contemporary research in cognitive linguistics. This assessment is followed by a cognitive examination of the biblical metaphors for God, their unconscious entailments, an assessment of why certain metaphors are more “effective” than others, and a short discussion of the implications of this “effectiveness.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Achtemeier, E. (1992). Exchanging God for “No Gods”: A discussion of female language for God. In A. Kimel (Ed.), Speaking the Christian God: The Holy Trinity and the Challenge of Feminism (pp. 1–16). Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besançon, S. A. (1996). Father-ruler: The meaning of the metaphor “Father” for God in the Bible. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 39(3), 433–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, M. (1973). Beyond God the father: Toward a philosophy of women’s liberation. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frye, R. M. (1992). Language for God and feminist language: Problems and principles. In A. Kimel (Ed.), Speaking the Christian God: The Holy Trinity and the Challenge of Feminism (pp. 17–43). Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, R. (1999). Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it back into the cultural world. In R. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected papers from the fifth international cognitive linguistics conference (pp. 146–166). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grady, J. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

  • Grady, J. (1999). A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. In R. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected papers from the fifth international cognitive linguistics conference (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C. (1996). Learnability in the acquisition of multiple senses: SOURCE reconsidered. In J. Johnson, M. Juge, & J. Moxley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 469–480). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimel, A. F. (1992). The god who likes his name: Holy trinity, feminism, and the language of faith. In A. Kimel (Ed.), Speaking the Christian God: The Holy Trinity and the Challenge of Feminism (pp. 188–208). Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortony, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFague, S. (1982). Metaphorical theology: Models of God in religious language. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFague, S. (1987). Models of God: Theology for an ecological, nuclear age. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narayanan, S. (1997). Embodiment in language understanding: Sensory-motor representations for metaphoric reasoning about event descriptions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

  • Reinhartz, A. (1999). Introduction: “Father” as metaphor in the fourth gospel. Semeia, 85, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soskice, J. M. (1985). Metaphor and religious language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, J. (1984). Mental abacus: The effect of abacus training on Chinese children’s mental calculation. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 145–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweetser, E. E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, M. (1987). Death is the mother of beauty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wren, B. (1989). What language shall I borrow? God-talk in worship: A male response to feminist theology. New York: Crossroad.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 24985 Carmel Hills Drive, Carmel, CA, 93923

    Mary Therese DesCamp

  2. University of California, Berkeley

    Eve E. Sweetser

Authors
  1. Mary Therese DesCamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eve E. Sweetser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Therese DesCamp.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

DesCamp, M.T., Sweetser, E.E. Metaphors for God: Why and How Do Our Choices Matter for Humans? The Application of Contemporary Cognitive Linguistics Research to the Debate on God and Metaphor. Pastoral Psychol 53, 207–238 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-004-0554-5

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-004-0554-5

Search

Navigation