METAFORE U JEZIKU, MIŠLJENJU I KULTURI

Metaforički princip preslikavanja konkretnih značenja u domenu apstraktnoga iskustva opisali su u temeljnoj studiji kognitivizma Metaphors we live by G. Lakoff i M. Johnson 1980. godine, koja nakon tri i pol desetljeća konačno dobiva i hrvatski prijevod – Metafore koje život znače – iz pera stilističarke Anere Ryznar. Lakoff i Johnson napuštaju tradicionalni stav o metafori kao (isključivo) jezičnoj figuri, pozicionirajući je u središte proučavanja te dajući joj ključnu ulogu u povezivanju uma (spoznaje) s tjelesnim (perceptivnim) momentima

METAFORE U JEZIKU, MIŠLJENJU I KULTURI

Metaforički princip preslikavanja konkretnih značenja u domenu apstraktnoga iskustva opisali su u temeljnoj studiji kognitivizma Metaphors we live by G. Lakoff i M. Johnson 1980. godine, koja nakon tri i pol desetljeća konačno dobiva i hrvatski prijevod – Metafore koje život znače – iz pera stilističarke Anere Ryznar. Lakoff i Johnson napuštaju tradicionalni stav o metafori kao (isključivo) jezičnoj figuri, pozicionirajući je u središte proučavanja te dajući joj ključnu ulogu u povezivanju uma (spoznaje) s tjelesnim (perceptivnim) momentima

Football, hell, game and war : linguistic expressions of the game as a war metaphor on the covers of portuguese sports newspapers

JOGO É GUERRA (GAME IS WAR) é, segundo a fundacional obra de G. Lakoff & M. Johnson (1980) uma das metáforas concetuais mais produtivas para os nossos mecanismos cognitivos, produtividade essa que se reforça na medida em que se estende para outras zonas, como as da própria interação linguística humana (DISCUSSÃO É LUTA). E pela análise das capas de alguns jornais desportivos portugueses, verifi ca-se como, na verdade, os títulos de primeira página expressam ostensivamente o jogo de futebol através da referida metáfora JOGO É GUERRA. Analisa-se também como os processos metafóricos e metonímicos se interpenetram na medida em que a metáfora básica JOGO É GUERRA aparece indissociavelmente ligada à estrutura metonímica GUERRA IMPLICA FOGO e esta, por sua vez, à metáfora FOGO INTENSO É INFERNO. Demonstra-se, ainda, a especifi cidade portuguesa de substituir os intervenientes por determinado tipo de animais,possibilitando assim o surgimento de outras estruturações metafóricas.GAME IS WAR is, according to the G. Lakoff & Mark Johnson’s foundational book Metaphors we live by, one of the most productive metaphors used by our cognitive mechanisms (and also related with another main metaphor concerning human interaction: ARGUMENT IS WAR). And in fact, analyzing the covers of the most popular Portuguese sport newspapers, we can see how, in fact, the football game is verbalized as a war. In this work we shall demonstrate how metonymy and metaphor work together: in our case, how basic metaphor GAME IS WAR is connected to the metonymy WAR IMPLIES FIRE and this one to the metaphor HARD FIRE IS HELL. Finally, we shall demonstrate the Portuguese particularity of substituting the players for a specific group of animals, which opens new metaphorical fields.Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT

Conceptual Metaphor Theory and Classical Theory: Affinities Rather than Divergences

Conceptual Metaphor Theory makes some strong claims against so-called Classical Theory which spans the accounts of metaphors from Aristotle to Davidson. Most of these theories, because of their traditional literal-metaphorical distinction, fail to take into account the phenomenon of conceptual metaphor. I argue that the underlying mechanism for explaining metaphor bears some striking resemblances among all of these theories. A mapping between two structures is always expressed. Conceptual Metaphor Theory insists, however, that the literal-metaphorical distinction of Classical Theories is empirically wrong. I claim that this criticism is based rather on terminological decisions than on empirical issues. Conceptual Metaphor Theory focusses primarily on conventional metaphors and struggles to extend its mechanism to novel metaphors, whereas Classical Theories focus on novel metaphors and struggle to extend their mechanisms to conventional metaphors. Since all of these theories study metaphors from the synchronic point of view, they are unable to take into account any semantic change. A diachronic perspective is what we need here, one which would allow us to explain the role of metaphor in semantic change and the development of language in general

Donald Trump’s political campaign rhetoric. A cognitive study

Politicians recruit conceptual metaphors, as these means enable them to talk about abstract political problems in terms of more tangible and commonplace entities. This study aims to explore linguistic aspects of Trump’s presidential campaign and is conducted in light of premises derived from Critical Discourse Analysis and Critical Metaphor Theory. The selected speeches were analyzed using a corpus research tool, i.e. Metaphor Identification Process was implemented. Donald Trump’s campaign speeches were retrieved from internet sources. The period from January 24th, 2015 to October 20th, 2016 was chosen for compiling the primary corpus of 20 speeches. The qualitative analysis indicates that the President used metaphorical expressions frequently. The author of the article enumerates some grand metaphorical themes underlying Donald Trump’s campaign speeches.Martyna Awier is a PhD student at the University of Białystok, Poland. Her academic interests are in the areas of cognitive linguistics and discourse studies. Her current research focuses on conceptual metaphors and Critical Discourse Analysis.University of BiałystokBarczewska, S. 2017. Conceptualizing Evolution Education. A Corpus-Based Analysis of US Press Discourse. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Beard, A. 2000. The Language of Politics. London: Routledge.Bloch, M. (ed.). 1975. Political Language and Oratory in Traditional Society. London/New York/San Francisco: Academic Press.Cameron, L. 2010. The discourse dynamics framework for metaphor. In: L. Cameron & R. Maslen (eds.), Metaphor Analysis. Research Practice in Applied Linguistics, Social Sciences and the Humanities, 77-98. London, Oakville: Equinox.Cap, P. 2008. Towards the proximization model of the analysis of legitimization in political discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 17-41.Charteris-Black, J. 2004. Corpus Approach to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Charteris-Black, J. 2005. Corpus Politicians and Rhetoric. The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Chilton, P. & Lakoff, G. 1989. Foreign policy by metaphors. Center for Research in Language 3/5: 2-19.Cienki, A. 2005. Metaphor in the ‘Strict Father’ and ‘Nurturant Parent’ cognitive models: Theoretical issues raised in an empirical study. Cognitive Linguistics 16: 279-312.Deignan, A. 2005. Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Fabiszak, M. 2010. Vilification of the enemy: Different enemies, the same linguistic strategies. In: D. Stanulewicz, T. Wolański & J. Redzimska (eds.), Lingua Terra Cognita II: A Festschrift for Professor Roman Kalisz, 73-97. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.Fabiszak, M. & Konat, B. 2013. Zastosowanie korpusów językowych w językoznawstwie kognitywnym. In: P. Stalmaszczyk (ed.), Metodologie językoznawstwa. Ewolucja języka. Ewolucja teorii językoznawczych, 131-142. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.Gibbs, R. W. 2017. Metaphor Wars. Conceptual Metaphors in Human Life. New York: Cambridge University Press.Górska, E. 2008. Four arguments for patterns of metaphorical thought. Acta Philologica 35: 15-31.Górska, E. 2014. Dynamiczne podejście do metafory. Prace Filologiczne LXIV/2: 109-122.Grey, W. 2000. Metaphor and meaning. Minerva 4: 1-8.Lakoff, G. 2002. Moral Politics. How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Lakoff, G. 2004. Don’t Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate – The Essential Guide for Progressives. White River Junction. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.Lakoff, G. 2006. Thinking Points: Communicating Our American Values and Vision. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Lakoff, G. 2008. The neural theory of metaphor. In: R. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor, 17-38. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Lakoff, G. 2016a. How to help Trump. http://georgelakoff.com/2016/12/15/how-to-helptrump/ (2 May 2019).Lakoff, G. 2016b. Understanding Trump’s use of language. http://georgelakoff.com/2016/08/19/understanding-trumps-use-of-language/ (2 May 2019).Lakoff, G. 2017. The president is the nation: The central metaphor Trump lives By. http://georgelakoff.com/2017/08/01/the-president-is-the-nation-the-central-metaphor-trump-lives-by/ (2 May 2019).Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Pragglejaz Group. 2007. MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22/1: 1-39.Turner, M. 1994. Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Van Dijk, T. A. 1997. What is political discourse analysis? Belgian Journal of Linguistics 11: 11-52.Wodak, R. 2009. Language and politics. In: J. Culpeper, F. Katamba, P. Kerswill, R. Wodak & T. McEnery (eds.), English Language: Description, Variation and Context. A definitive new textbook in English language, 577-592. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.27 (4/2019)42

Abstract Concepts: Sensory-Motor Grounding, Metaphors, and Beyond

Abstract In the last decade many researchers have obtained evidence for the idea that cognition shares processing mechanisms with perception and action. Most of the evidence supporting the grounded cognition framework focused on representations of concrete concepts, which leaves open the question how abstract concepts are grounded in sensory-motor processing. One promising idea is that people simulate concrete situations and introspective experiences to represent abstract concepts [Barsalou, L. W., & Wiemer-Hastings, K. (2005). Situating abstract concepts. In D. Pecher, & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking (pp. 129–163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.], although this has not yet been investigated a lot. A second idea, which more researchers have investigated, is that people use metaphorical mappings from concrete to abstract concepts [Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.]. According to this conceptual metaphor theory, image schemas structure and provide sensory-motor grounding for abstract concepts. Although there is evidence that people automatically activate image schemas when they process abstract concepts, we argue that situations are also needed to fully represent meaning

The study of metaphor as part of Critical Discourse Analysis

This article discusses how the study of metaphoric and more generally, figurative language use contributes to critical discourse analysis (CDA). It shows how cognitive linguists’ recognition of metaphor as a fundamental means of concept- and argument-building can add to CDA's account of meaning constitution in the social context. It then discusses discrepancies between the early model of conceptual metaphor theory and empirical data and argues that discursive-pragmatic factors as well as sociolinguistic variation have to be taken into account in order to make cognitive analyses more empirically and socially relevant. In conclusion, we sketch a modified cognitive approach informed by Relevance Theory within CDA

Conceptual Metaphors: a review with implications for human understandings and systems practice

We provide an overview of metaphor theory and explore implications for systems practice by building on claims that metaphors are central to our ways of understanding. As stakeholders will have different understandings, each metaphor will reveal and conceal different aspects of their understandings. These differences need to be accommodated within systems practice. Our contribution in this paper is to show how metaphors can explain, appreciate and create different understandings. Further, new understandings can emerge from considering different metaphors