Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 19:2 (2021) ► pp.273–298

Metaphoric chains

Single-ground versus double-ground chains

| Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
| Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
| Research Institute for Islamic Culture and Thought
| Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
The molecular structure of a complex metaphor comprises two or more atomic metaphorical parts, known as primary metaphors. In the same way, several molecular structures of metaphors may combine and form a mixture, known as mixed metaphors. In this study, different types of metaphoric integrations are reviewed and illustrated in figures to facilitate understanding the phenomena. Above all, we introduce double-ground metaphoric chain, a new form of metaphoric integration that has not been identified in the previous literature. Also, a distinction is made between single-ground and double-ground metaphoric chains. In the former, which has already been introduced, two basic metaphors are chained with the same form and have the same ground, while the latter includes two chained metaphors, one main metaphor plus a supportive one, with different grounds. In this analysis, we benefited from Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) to analyse double-ground metaphoric chains. This study suggests that each metaphoric integration leads to a multifaceted conceptualization, in which each facet is related to one of the constituent micro-metaphors.
Keywords: metaphoric integration, double-ground metaphoric chain (DGMC), multifaceted conceptualization, macro-metaphor, micro-metaphor
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Framework
    • 2.1Mixed metaphors
    • 2.2Metaphoric complexes
      • 2.2.1Metaphoric amalgams
      • 2.2.2Metaphoric chains
    • 2.3Alluding metaphor
  • 3.Double-ground metaphoric chain
    • 3.1More DGMC examples from the corpus of contemporary American English (COCA)
    • 3.2Comparison of DGMCs with other metaphoric integrations
      • Mixed metaphor
      • Metaphoric amalgam
      • Single-ground metaphoric chain (SGMC)
      • Double-ground metaphoric chain
    • 3.3DGMCs and blending theory
    • 3.4DGMCs and cultural filters
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 11 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00085.nav
References (60)
References
Abdul-Raof, H. (2006). Arabic rhetoric: A pragmatic analysis. London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abrams, M. H., & Harpham, G. (2014). A glossary of literary terms. Nelson Education.Google Scholar
Ahmed, M. J., & Ahmed, S. (1994). The Koran, complete dictionary and literal translation. Vancouver: M, J & S Ahmed.Google Scholar
Arberry, A. J. (1955). The koran interpreted. New York: Macmillan Publishing.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A. (2003). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V. (2007). A glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
(2003). Conceptual blending, form and meaning. Recherches En Communication, 191, 57–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2002). The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 435–465). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2016). Mixing metaphor. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action [revised version]. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 349–378). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grady, J. (1997a). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
(1997b). theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 81, 267–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics, 371, 1595–1614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grady, J., Oakley, T., & Coulson, S. (1999). Blending and metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 101–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grady, J., Taub, S., & Morgan, P. (1996). Primitive and compound metaphors. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp. 177–187). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Irving, T. B. (1985). The Quran. Vermont: Amana Books.Google Scholar
Kimmel, M. (2010). Why we mix metaphors (and mix them well): Discourse coherence, conceptual metaphor, and beyond. Journal of pragmatics, 42(1), 97–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). A view of “mixed metaphor” within a conceptual metaphor theory framework. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), Mixing metaphor (pp. 3–15). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Makarem Shirazi, N. (2007). Bargozide-ye Tafsir-e Nemuneh [Selection of Tafsir-e-Nemuneh] (vol. 41). Tehran: Dar al-Kotob al-Eslamya. (Original in Persian)Google Scholar
Meisami, J. S. & Starkey, P. (Eds.). (1998). Encyclopedia of Arabic literature. (vol. 21). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Miró-Sastre, I. (2018). Combining metaphors: From metaphoric amalgams to binary systems. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 38(1), 81–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Monotheist Group. (2008). The Message – A translation of the Glorious Qur’an. US: Brainbow Press.Google Scholar
Müller, C. (2016). Why mixed metaphors make sense. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), Mixing metaphor (pp. 31–56). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naciscione, A. (2016). Extended metaphor in the web of discourse. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), Mixing metaphor (pp. 241–266). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noy, A. (2018). The legacy of ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī in the Arabic East before al-Qazwīnī’s Talkhīṣ al-Miftāḥ. Journal of Abbasid Studies, 5(1–2), 11–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickthall, M. (1930). The meaning of the glorious Koran: An explanatory translation. Quran Archive.Google Scholar
Qaraei, A. (2003). The Qur’an with an English paraphrase. Qom: The center for translation of Holy Qur’an.Google Scholar
Qaribullah, H., & Darwish, A. (2001). The meaning of the Glorious Koran. Online: [URL].(01.09.2021).Google Scholar
Radden, G. (2000). How metonymic are metaphors? In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 93–108). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Reddy, M. J. (1979). The Conduit Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2008). Cross-linguistic analysis, second language teaching and cognitive semantics: The case of Spanish diminutives and reflexive constructions. In S. de Knop & T. de Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar: A volume in honour of René Dirven (pp. 121–153). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2017). Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: From basicity to complexity. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition, and discourse (pp. 138–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Ten lectures on cognitive modeling. Between grammar and language-based inferencing. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Galera-Masegosa, A. (2011). Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value, 3(1), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation: Metaphoric chains. In B. E. Rebollar (Ed.), Studies in linguistics and cognition (pp. 157–185). Bern & Switzerland: Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar
(2014). Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Mairal, R. (2011). Constraints on syntactic alternation: lexical-constructional subsumption in the lexical constructional model. In P. Guerrero-Medina (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English. Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 62–82). London & Oakville: Equinox.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Pérez, L. (2011). The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 261, 161–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saffarzadeh, T. (2001). Translation of the Holy Quran. Tehran: Cultural Institute Jahan Rayaneh Kawthar.Google Scholar
Sakkaki, S. A. (1987). Miftah al-’ulūm [The key to the sciences], Naʼīm Zarzūr (Ed.). Beirut: Dāru-l-kitāb-ul-ʼilmīyyah. (Original in Arabic).Google Scholar
Sarwar, S. M. (1981). The Holy Quran: Arabic text and English translation. Elmhurst: Islamic Seminary.Google Scholar
Shakir, M. H. (1999). The Qur’an translation. Elmhurst, NY: Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an.Google Scholar
Shamisā, S. (2014). Bayān [Eloquence]. Tehran: Mitra Publication. (Original in Persian).Google Scholar
Steen, G. (Ed.). (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU (vol. 141). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tabatabaie, M. H. (1995). Translation of Tafsir Al-Mizan. Trans: Seyed Mohammad Bagher Musavi Hamedani. Qom: Islamic Publications Office of Teachers’ Community, Vol. 171. (Original in Persian)Google Scholar
Taftāzānī, S. (2007). Sharh-ul-Mukhtasar [Description of Al-Mukhtasar]. Qom: Esmāīlīān publications. (Original in Arabic).Google Scholar
Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G. (1995). Conceptual integration and formal expression. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10(3), 183–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yu, N. (2008). Metaphor from body and culture. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 247–261). New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yusuf Ali, A. (1934). The Qur’an. Text, translation and commentary. New York.Google Scholar