Current Approaches to Metaphor Analysis in Discourse

Ignasi Navarro i Ferrando

• Publisher: De Gruyter Mouton
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9783110764321
• eBook ISBN: 9783110625974
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This volume takes up the challenge of surveying the present state of a variety of approaches to the identification, analysis and interpretation of metaphor across communication channels, situational contexts, genres and social spheres. It reflects three foremost trends of present metaphor research, namely the communicative approach, the cognitive modelling approach and the multimodality approach. These trends are considered as areas of research emerging on the ground of the Conceptual Metaphor Theory, initiated by Lakoff. The book intends to show their concomitances as well as mark their diversifying paths. The aim is to bring about and make apparent the many connections among assumingly different trends stemming from CMT.

Whereas discrepancies between communicative and conceptual perspectives might seem irredeemable, the book emphasizes and claims that the background framework of CMT provides a solid foundation for collaboration and mutual influence. Consequently, the analysis of metaphor usage in context may provide insights for cognitive modelling proposals. The analysis of cognitive configuration of conceptual domains may, in turn, illuminate our understanding of communicative decisions in discourse. The integration of multimodal metaphor analysis puts forward the idea that diverse modal manifestations of metaphor reveal the symbiosis between communicative and cognitive stances. The various subject areas and methodologies illuminate the scene of current research in the field. The poignant contributions open far reaching avenues into the realm of human thought and discourse.

Part I: Metaphor and knowledge configuration in discourse

Some consequences of a multi-level view of metaphor

Zoltán Kövecses

ELTE, Budapest, School of English and American Studies

Abstract

Based on my multi-level view of conceptual metaphors (Kövecses 2017), I examine three issues in Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT): First, I raise the issue of “deep” vs. “superficial” metaphors and their ontological status. It can be suggested that deep metaphors are those that are at the frame, domain or schema levels, while superficial ones are at the level of mental spaces. Second, I take up the issue of whether “deliberate” metaphors are purely deliberate. I propose that deliberate metaphors come with a large non-deliberate part, in that they evoke frame-, domain-, and schema-level metaphors. Third, I discuss the issue of methodological “rivalry” between theories of metaphor. I suggest that the different methodologies and approaches apply to different levels of metaphor and that they are all useful in doing their respective jobs.

Keywords: multi-level metaphor, deep vs. superficial metaphor, deliberate ­metaphor, methodological approaches to metaphor,

1 Introduction

In the past few years I have proposed a “multi-level view of metaphor” within the framework of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Kövecses 2015a, 2017). In essence, the proposal was that the four types of conceptual structure relevant to the study of metaphor, such as image schemas, domains, frames, and mental spaces, can be regarded as occupying different levels in what I called “schematicity hierarchies.” Schematicity hierarchies have these conceptual structures arranged in vertical hierarchies on different levels of schematicity – from most schematic to least schematic. Specifically, we can distinguish four levels of schematicity at which the four types of conceptual structures can be placed. The four levels go from the most schematic to the least schematic, as represented in the diagram below:

The upward arrow in figure 2.1 indicates increasing schematicity, whereas the downward arrow indicates increasing specificity.

Figure 2.1: Schematicity hierarchy for four conceptual structures.

I also suggested that three distinctions apply to these four levels. The first distinction from the top is between image schemas and the three lower levels. Image schemas are analogue structures in the brain/mind, while domains, frames, and mental spaces are not (they are propositional). The second distinction is between mental spaces, on the one hand, and frames, domains, and image schemas, on the other. The basis for the distinction is that whereas frames, domains, and image schemas are structures in long-term memory, mental spaces are operative in working memory (see Fauconnier 2007). The third distinction is between the level of linguistic utterances used in actual communication and those of the conceptual structures mentioned. Figure 2.2 displays the various distinctions:

Figure 2.2: The multi-level view of conceptual and linguistic structures.

Furthermore, I claimed that the multi-level view of metaphor helps us resolve, or at least clarify, some issues in conceptual metaphor theory. In particular, I raised the following issues (Kövecses 2015a): (1) Which linguistic expressions related to a source domain are used metaphorically in relation to a target? (2) What is the appropriate conceptual structure that participates in metaphorical conceptualization? (3) At which level of generality should we formulate conceptual metaphors? (4) Do the mappings always go from source to target? (5) Are all linguistic metaphors systematic? Given these questions, I argued that the issues are not independent of each other but are closely related. They all have to do with how we think about our conceptual system: in particular, how we think about its essential structures in terms of their schematicity and what kind of distinction(s) we postulate regarding its operation in our attempt to account for the functioning of the system.

In the present paper, I wish to examine three consequences of the new, ­multi-level view of metaphor in relation to (1) a proposal by George Lakoff, (2) a distinction emphasized by Gerard Steen, and (3) a fundamental issue in the methodology of studying metaphor within a CMT framework. In particular, they are as follows:

• What are “deep” vs. “shallow” or “superficial metaphors? What is their ontological status in the metaphorical conceptual system?
• Do “deliberate” metaphors exist independently of “nondeliberate” ones? How best can we characterize them in a multi-level view of metaphor?
• What is the “best” method to study metaphors out of the many available ones in the various disciplines that deal with metaphor?

In what follows, I address the three questions and attempt to examine them in light of the multi-level view of metaphor.

2 Deep vs. shallow metaphors

In a 1995 paper, George Lakoff distinguishes two different kinds of metaphor: “deep” and “superficial.” He explains the basis for the distinction in the following way:

The metaphors I have discussed so far in the paper have been both conceptual in nature and deep, in the sense that they are used largely without being noticed, that they have enormous social consequences, and that they shape our very understanding of our everyday world. It is important to contrast such deep conceptual metaphors such as Morality is Strength and The Nation is a Family with superficial metaphors, which are only of marginal interest but which often lead analysts astray.

(Lakoff 1995, http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html)

In other words, conceptual and deep metaphors are used without being noticed, they have enormous social consequences, and they shape our understanding of the world. Given this characterization, we can ask what the ontological status of deep and superficial metaphors is – especially in relation to the four-level hierarchy as described in other publications (Kövecses 2015a, 2017). How do deep and superficial metaphors fit into the schematicity hierarchy defined by the conceptual structures of image schemas, domains, frames, and mental spaces, as shown above?

The particular example Lakoff uses to demonstrate superficial metaphors is that of the safety net. He illustrates the metaphor from a newspaper article: “Senator Phil Gramm told a college commencement audience that the social safety net erected by government by the N...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Metaphor analysis in discourse. Introduction
• Part I: Metaphor and knowledge configuration in discourse
• Part II: Consciousness in metaphor usage
• Part III: Metaphor analysis in multimodal discourse
• Subject Index