Abstract
The study of metaphor has been revolutionized by the Cognitive Linguistic approach advocated by Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 1999; for a good introduction, see Kövecses, 2002). They have shown how the structure of language is replete with metaphor, for instance in conventional expressions for talk about argument in terms of war (Lotte defended her thesis; Sam attacked George with mild irony; Bush has proposed another untenable position) or (un)happiness in terms of a vertical scale (I feel in high spirits today; don’t let it bring you down). But they have also widened the scope of the analysis of metaphor beyond its linguistic form and meaning. The Cognitive Linguistic claim is that these conventional linguistic metaphors are reflections of underlying conventional mappings between distinct conceptual domains, or metaphor ‘in thought’, to the effect that we think of argument as war or happiness as up. Such conceptual cross-domain mappings are held to be part of people’s enduring knowledge structures and to be a constitutive factor of all kinds of cognitive processes, including language use, reasoning, and the exercise of the imagination in literature, the arts, and other domains of human performance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Barcelona, A. (ed.) (2000). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter).
Bovair, S. and Kieras, D. (1985). ‘A guide to propositional analysis for research on technical prose’. In B. Britton and J. Black (eds.), Understanding Expository Text (pp. 315–62) (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).
Bowdle, B. F. and Gentner, D. (2005). ‘The career of metaphor’, Psychological Review, 112, 1, 193–216.
Caballero Rodriguez, M. d. R. (2006). Re-viewing Space: Figurative Language in Architects’ Assessment of Built Space (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter).
Cameron, L. and Low, G. (eds.) (1999). Researching and Applying Metaphor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in Educational Discourse (London: Continuum).
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).
Chiappe, D. L. and Kennedy, J. M. (2001). ‘Literal bases for metaphor and simile’, Metaphor and Symbol, 16, 3 & 4, 249–76.
Chilton, P. (1996). Security Metaphors: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House (New York: Peter Lang).
Dirven, R. and Pörings, R. (eds.) (2002). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter).
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1999a). Intentions in the Experience of Meaning (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1999b). ‘Researching Metaphor’. In L. Cameron and G. Low (eds.), Researching and Applying Metaphor (pp. 29–47) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2000). ‘Making good psychology out of blending theory’, Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 3&4: 347–58.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2005). Embodiment and Cognitive Science (New York: Cambridge University Press).
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2006). ‘Introspection and cognitive linguistics: should we trust our own intuitions?’ Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 135–52.
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Goatly, A. (1997). The Language of Metaphors (London: Routledge).
Halliday, M. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd edn) (London: Edward Arnold).
Halliday, M. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999). Construing Experience Through Meaning: A Language-based Approach to Cognition (London: Cassell).
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Koller, V. (2004). Metaphor and Gender in Business Media Discourse: A Critical Cognitive Study (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Lakoff, G. (1986). ‘The meanings of literal’, Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 1,4: 291–6.
Lakoff, G. (1993). ‘The contemporary theory of metaphor’. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd edn: pp. 202–51) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: Chicago University Press).
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought (New York: Basic Books).
Mann, W. and Thompson, S. (1988). ‘Rhetorical structure theory: toward a functional theory of text organization’, Text , 8, 3: 243–81.
Murphy, G. (1996). ‘On metaphoric representation’, Cognition, 60, 2: 173–204.
Murphy, G. (1997). ‘Reasons to doubt the present evidence for metaphoric representation’, Cognition, 62, 1: 99–108.
Panther, K.-U. and Radden, G. (eds.) (1999). Metonymy in Language and Thought (Amsterdam: John Benjamins).
Panther, K.-U. and Thornburg, L. (2003). Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing (Amsterdam: John Benjamins).
Perfetti, C. (1999). ‘Comprehending written language: a blueprint of the reader’. In C. Brown and P. Hagoort (eds.), The Neurocognition of Language (pp. 167–208) (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Pragglejaz Group. (2007). ‘MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse’, Metaphor and Symbol, 22, 1: 1–39.
Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M., Taverniers, M. and Ravelli, L. (eds.) (2003). Grammatical Metaphor (Amsterdam: John Benjamins).
Steen, G. J. (1994). Understanding Metaphor in Literature: An Empirical Approach (London: Longman).
Steen, G. J. (2002). ‘Metaphor identification: a cognitive approach’, Style, 36, 3: 386–407.
Steen, G. J. (2004). ‘Can discourse properties of metaphor affect metaphor recognition?’ Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 7: 1295–313.
Steen, G. J. (2005). ‘Metonymy goes cognitive linguistic: introduction to special issue’, Style, 39, 1: 1–11.
Steen, G.J. (2006). ‘Discourse functions of metaphor: an experiment in affect’. In R. Benczes and S. Csábi (eds.), The Metaphors of Sixty: Papers Presented on the occasion of the 60th Birthday of Zoltán Kövecses (pp. 236–44) (Budapest: School of English and American Studies, Eötvös Loránd University).
Steen, G. J. (2007). Finding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage: A Methodological Analysis of Theory and Research (Amsterdam: John Benjamins).
Steen, G. J. and Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2004). ‘Questions about metaphor in literature’, European Journal of English Studies, 8, 3: 337–54.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). ‘Cognitive context models and discourse’. In M. Stamenov (ed.), Language Structure, Discourse and the Access to Consciousness (pp. 189–226) (Amsterdam: John Benjamins).
Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). ‘Discourse, context, and cognition’, Discourse Studies, 8, 1: 159–77.
Van Dijk, T. A. and Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension (New York: Academic Press).
Van Oostendorp, H. and Goldman, S. (eds.) (1999). The Construction of Mental Representations during Reading (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).
Weaver, C. A., III, Mannes, S. and Fletcher, C. A. (eds.) (1995). Discourse Comprehension: Essays in Honor of Walter Kintsch (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2009 Gerard Steen
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Steen, G. (2009). Three Kinds of Metaphor in Discourse: A Linguistic Taxonomy. In: Musolff, A., Zinken, J. (eds) Metaphor and Discourse. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230594647_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230594647_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-35903-5
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-59464-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave Language & Linguistics CollectionEducation (R0)