In 2011 I proposed a new approach to metaphor analysis and typology, based on the strict distinction between the material and phenomenological worlds. I concluded that the ultimate source domain (experiential basis) is the world of physical objects. The present paper develops these ideas, presenting a more detailed analysis of each of the metaphor types. Thus, I claim that the concrete-to-concrete metaphors are based on metonymy and abstract-to-concrete on the OBJECT schema. Abstract-to-abstract metaphorization falls into two traditional types: structural and orientational metaphors. As to the former, I show that the vague expressions “more concrete domain” or “more abstract domain” can be made clearer by considering the ontological status of the component elements of the domain: the “more concrete” domain has more elements of physical ontology. Orientational metaphors have been found to be only superficially orientational, their true objective being valuation. I conclude that all these metaphor types eventually refer to the world of physical objects for their experiential basis.
Aquinas, T. (1265–1274 [2008]). Summa Theologica(The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Second and revised edition, 1920. Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Online Edition Copyright 2008 by Kevin Knight). ([URL])
Barcelona, A. (2000). On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 3–58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, A. (2003a). Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update. In R. Dirven & R. Pöring (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 207–277). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Barcelona, A. (2003b). The metaphorical and metonymic understanding of the Trinitarian Dogma. International Journal of English Studies, 3 (1), 1–27.
Barcelona, A. (2011). Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez. (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 7–59). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Barsalou, L.W. (1999), Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660 (pages 610–660 are Open Peer Commentary).
Brugman, C. (1990). What is the Invariance Hypothesis?Cognitive Linguistics, 1 (2), 257–266.
Croft, W. (2002). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 161–205). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. (2008). Metaphor as structure-mapping. In R.W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 109–128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R.W. Jr. (1996). Why many concepts are metaphorical. Cognition, 611, 309–319.
Good, J. (2006). Wittgenstein and the theory of perception. London/New York: Continuum.
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: CSLI Publications.
Hampe, B. (Ed.). (2005). From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kiełtyka, R. (2007). Dark horses, fat cats and lucky dogs: A synthetic view of English zoosemy. In G. Kleparski, R. Kiełtyka & M. Pikor-Niedziałek (Eds.), Aspects of semantic transposition of words (pp. 43–55). Chełm: Wydawnictwo TAWA.
Kiełtyka, R. (2008). On zoosemy: The study of Middle English and Early Modern English domesticated animals. Rzeszów: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego.
Kiełtyka, R. (2009). Zoosemy as a ubiquitous cognitive mechanism. In G. Kleparski, P. Cymbalista, R. Kiełtyka & K. Pytel (Eds.), In medias res (pp. 41–56). Rzeszów: Wydawnictwo PROMAR-INTERNATIONAL.
Kimmel, M. (2005). Culture regained: Situated and compound image schemas. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning (pp. 285–311). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kotarbiński, T. (1990 [1929]). Elementy teorii poznania, logiki formalnej i metodologii nauk [Elements of the theory of knowledge, formal logic and methodology of the sciences]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.
Kövecses, Z. (2008). The conceptual structure of happiness. In H. Tissari, A.B. Pessi & M. Salmela (Eds.), Happiness: Cognition, experience, language (pp. 131–143).Helsinki: Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). 2nd ed. Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krzeszowski, T. (1997). Angels and devils in hell. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Energeia.
Kwiatkowska, A. (2007). Pre-linguistic and non-linguistic metonymy. In K. Kosecki (Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy (pp. 297–308). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Lakoff, G. (1990). The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas?Cognitive Linguistics, 1–21, 39–74.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980. 2nd ed. 2002). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Łukasiewicz, J. (1951). Aristotle’s syllogistic from the standpoint of modern formal logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Michotte, A., Thines, G., & Crabbe, G. (1991 [1964]). Amodal completion of perceptual structures. In G. Thines, A. Costall & G. Butterworth (Eds.), Michotte’s experimental phenomenology of perception (pp. 140–167). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Quinn, N., & Holland, D. (1987). Culture and cognition. In N. Quinn & D. Holland (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 3–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London/New York: Longman.
Radden, G. (2003). How metonymic are metaphors?. In R. Dirven & R. Pöring (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 407–434). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Radden, G. (2005). The metaphor TIME AS SPACE across languages. In E. Górska & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy – metaphor – collage (pp. 99–120). Warsaw: Warsaw University Press.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Peña, S. (2005). Conceptual interaction, cognitive operations, and projection spaces. In F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza & S. Peña (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 254–280). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J., & Pérez, L. (2011). The contemporary theory of metaphor: Myths, developments and challenges. Metaphor and Symbol, 26 (3), 161–185.
Searle, J.R. (1985). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J.R. (1990). Consciousness, explanatory inversion, and cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 131, 585–642.
Szwedek, A. (2000). The ontology of metaphors: The sense of touch in language formation. Scripta Periodica, 41, 193–199.
Szwedek, A. (2002). Objectification: From object perception to metaphor creation. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & K. Turewicz (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics to-day (pp. 159–175). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Szwedek, A. (2004). Objectification in metaphorical processes: Some philosophical issues. Lingua Posnaniensis, 461, 121–130.
Szwedek, A. (2009). Conceptualization of space and time. In P. Łobacz, P. Nowak & W. Zabrocki (Eds.), Language, science and culture (pp. 317–333). Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
Turner, M. (1990). Aspects of the invariance hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 247–255.
Wachowski, W. (2011). Understanding metonymy. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Adam Mickiewicz University.
Zimmerman, M. (1997). How science and society respond to extraordinary patterns. Talk given at PEER’s August 1997 conference. Retrieved on February 24, 2014 from [URL]
Oxford English dictionary (OED) on CD (2nd edition).
Microsoft bookshelf (MBS) 1996–1997 Ed.. Microsoft.
Collocations: Dictionary for students of English (CDSE). 2002. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cited by (8)
Cited by eight other publications
Drogosz, Anna Maria
2023. Cognitive Semantics Quest for the Ultimate Source Domain. Acta Neophilologica 1:XXV ► pp. 185 ff.
2023. Metaphors of coming out in Polish: A cognitive linguistic approach. Topics in Linguistics 24:1 ► pp. 94 ff.
Dyrmo, Tomasz
2024. Image schemas in gestural metaphorical scenarios of swearing. Multimodal Communication 13:2 ► pp. 117 ff.
Trojszczak, Marcin
2019. Similarities and Contrasts in Multisensory Metaphorical Conceptualisations of Memories in Polish and English. In Contacts and Contrasts in Cultures and Languages [Second Language Learning and Teaching, ], ► pp. 85 ff.
2024. Expressing negative opinions through metaphor and simile in popular music reviews. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics
Łącka-Badura, Jolanta
2016. Metaphorical conceptualization of success in American success books, aphorisms and quotes. Lingua Posnaniensis 58:1 ► pp. 39 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.