Abstract:
The essence of metaphor’s reliance on two domains, a source and a target, is argued as stemming from a fundamental characteristic of higher cognition—that of conceptualizing more than one cognitive/embodied domain at the same time. This cognitive duality is argued to underlie a plethora of conceptual activities including comparison, contrast, categorization, as well as metaphorizing. Why “two” domains seems the emergent and optimal means of such meta-cognition, rather than a higher number of domains, which might confer some advantages, is argued to arise from a grand compromise between an extreme necessity of humans to create and rely-upon shared complex meanings, and the complexities in enabling such shared meaning across multiple domains.
Keywords: figurative language, metaphor, conceptual domains, cognitive duality, source domain, target domain.
For citation: Colston H.L. Metaphorization origins: key points. Translation and comments by L.V. Kalashnikova. Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics. 2024, no 4, pp. 19–34. https://doi.org/10.29025/2079-6021-2024-4-19-34 (In Russ.).
Bionote:
Herbert L. Colston
University of Alberta,
T6G 2E7 Edmonton, AB, Canada;
4-36A Assiniboia Hall, 9137 116 St NW;
ORCID ID: 0000-0003-1256-0892;
Scopus Author ID: 6603153229;
e-mail: colston@ualberta.ca
References:
1. Newton Isaak. Opticks. London: S. Smith and B. Walford, 1704:360. Available at: http://www.rarebookroom.org/Control/nwtopt/index.html. Accessed November 20, 2024.
2. Gibbs RW. Metaphor wars: conceptual metaphors in human life. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 2017:320. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107762350.
3. Fauconnier G, Turner M. The way we think: conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York, NY: Basic Books. 2002:288. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/45029395/Conceptual_Blending_and_the_Minds_Hidden_Complexities. Accessed November 20, 2024.
4. Colston HL. The roots of metaphor: the essence of thought. Frontiers in Psychology. 2023;14:1197346. https://doi.org/doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1197346.
5. Colston HL. How Language Makes Meaning: Embodiment and Conjoined Antonymy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 2019:282. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108377546.
6. Rasse C. Poetic metaphors: creativity and interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Shakespeare W. (1988). The complete works of William Shakespeare, III. New York, NY: Bantam Books. 2022;15:190. https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.15.
7. Gibbs RW, Colston HL. Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 2012:384. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139168779.
8. Glucksberg S. Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. Oxford Psychology Series. New York. 2001. (online edn., Oxford Academic. 2008). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195111095.001.0001.
9. Winter B, Srinivasan M. Why is semantic change asymmetric? The role of concreteness and word frequency and metaphor and metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol. 2022;37(1):39–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2021.1945419
10. Lakoff G, Johnson M. Metaphors we live by. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. Review by: Black M. 1980;40(2): 208–210. https://doi.org/10.2307/430414.
11. Giora R, Fein O, Kronrod A, Elnatan I, Shuval N, Zur A. Weapons of Mass Distraction: Optimal Innovation and Pleasure Ratings. Metaphor and Symbol. 2004:19(2):115–141. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1902_2.
We recommend authors to read carefully the scope of our journal, the submission guidelines and malpractice statement. Original papers and studies developing new theoretical and applied issues are preferred. Such works are always cited, and citing your works reflects your status as a researcher.