Cover not available
Article published In:
Terminology
Vol. 26:2 (2020) ► pp.237–264

Multidimensionality, dynamicity, and complexity

A reconsideration of the functions of metaphorical terms

 | China Pharmaceutical University
 | Nanjing University
With the cognitive shift since the 1990s, metaphorical terms have become a recurrent theme in terminological studies. However, how they actually function in science communication has not been fully explored. The issue becomes more pressing today since the exponential expansion of knowledge has heightened our awareness of the need for new designations. And the metaphorical approach is often an economic choice. To gain more insights into the mechanism of metaphorical terms, the authors of the present study will reexamine their functional peculiarities by looking at their linguistic, cognitive and communicative facets respectively. The multidimensional functions of metaphorical terms as exemplified by those in economics are described in detail. More importantly, their dynamic functional potentialities as well as the interplay among them are further discussed.
Keywords: metaphorical terms in economics, functions, functional potentialities, reconsideration
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Multidimensionality: Functions of a metaphorical term as a polyhedron
    • 2.1Linguistic function: Plugging lexical gaps with linguistic economy
    • 2.2Cognitive function: Reducing the comprehension and memory load
    • 2.3Communicative function: Enhancing pragmatic effects with undertones
  • 3.Dynamicity: Multivalent functional potentialities of a metaphorical term
    • 3.1Linguistic functional potentiality in term formation
    • 3.2Cognitive functional potentiality in theory construction
    • 3.3Communicative functional potentiality in discursive rhetoric
  • 4.Complexity: Situational interplay of different functional facets
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 4 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/term.00052.jia
References (50)
References
Alexiev, Boyan. 2004. “Towards an Experientialist Model of Terminological Metaphorisation”. Terminology, 10(2): 189–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker, Gary S. 1964. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Bies, Werner. 1996. “Thinking with the help of images: on the metaphors of knowledge organization.” Knowledge Organization 23(1), 3–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Richard. 1993. “Metaphor and theory change: What is ‘metaphor’ a metaphor for?” In Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony, 481–532. New York: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cabré, M. Teresa. 2000. “Elements for a theory of terminology: Towards an alternative paradigm”. Terminology 6(1): 35–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “Theories of terminology: Their description, prescription and explanation”. Terminology 9(2): 163–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2009. “Metaphor and political communication”. In Metaphor and Discourse, ed. by Andreas Musolff, and Jörg Zinken, 97–115. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Condamines, Anne. 2017. “The emotional dimension in terminological variation: The example of transitivization of the locative complement in fishing”. In Multiple Perspectives on Terminological Variation, ed. by Patrick Drouin, Aline Francœur, John Humbley, and Aurelié Picton, 11–30. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuadrado, Georgina, and Pilar Durán. 2013. “Proposal for a semantic hierarchy of terminological metaphors in science and technology”. International Journal of English Linguistics 3(4): 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dion, Delphine, and Gérald Mazzalov. 2016. “Reviving sleeping beauty brands by rearticulating brand heritage”. Journal of Business Research 69(12): 5894–5900. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escribano, P. Durán, and Irina A. Álvarez. 2016. “Cross-disciplinary metaphorical meaning extension in the creation of new scientific terms”. Beyond the Universe of Languages for Specific Purposes: The 21st century perspective: 107–110.Google Scholar
Faber, Pamela. et al. 2014. “Neural substrates of specialized knowledge representation: an fMRI study”. Revue française de linguistique appliquée 19(1): 15–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faber, Pamela, and Carlos Márquez Linares. 2004. “The role of imagery in specialized communication”. In Imagery in Language, ed. by Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Alina Kwiatkowska, 585–602. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2005. “A three-level model of metaphor for specialized communication”. Translationswissenschaft im interdisziplinären Dialog: 71–94.Google Scholar
Faber, Pamela. 2012. “Conclusion”. In A Cognitive Linguistics View of Terminology and Specialized Language, ed. by Pamela Faber, 249–258. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faber, Pamela, and Antonio S. M. Pizarro. 2012. “Specialized language pragmatics”. In A Cognitive Linguistics View of Terminology and Specialized Language, ed. by Pamela Faber, 177–203. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Felber, Helmut. 1984. Terminology Manual. Paris: UNESCO & INFOTERM.Google Scholar
Finatto, M. J. Bocorny. 2010. “Metaphors in scientific and technical languages: Challenges and perspective”. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada 261(SPE): 645–656. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frezza, Giulia, and Elena Gagliasso. 2017. “Building metaphors: Constitutive narratives in science”. In Metaphor in Communication, Science and Education, ed. by Francesca Ervas, Elisabetta Gola, and Maria G. Rossi, 199–216. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goatly, Andrew. 1997. The Language of Metaphors. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Han, Jing. 2009. “A sketch of games of translation”. Journal of Language and Literature (4): 65–66.Google Scholar
Kageura, Kyo. 2002. The Dynamics of Terminology: A descriptive theory of term formation and terminological growth. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. “The contemporary theory of metaphor”. In Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony, 202–251. New York: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Ingrid, and Kristen Mackintosh. 1996. “Refining the terminographer’s concept-analysis: How can phraseology help”. Terminology 3(1): 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Ingrid, Victoria Zaluski, and Kristen MacIntosh. 1997. “Metaphorical Internet terms: a conceptual and structural analysis.” Terminology 4(1): 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morgenstern, Oskar, and John Von Neumann. 1953. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Prandi, Michele. 2010. “Typology of Metaphors: Implications for Translation.” Mutatis Mutandis: Revista Latinoamericana de Traducción 3(2): 304–332.Google Scholar
Reeves, Carol. 2005. The Language of Science. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Resche, Catherine. 2001. “Equivocal Economic Terms or Terminology Revisited.” Meta, 45 (1): 158–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Towards a better understanding of metaphorical networks in the language of economics: The importance of theory-constitutive metaphors.” In Metaphor and Mills: Figurative Language in Business and Economics, ed. by Honesto Herrera-Soler, and Michael White, 77–102. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Economic Terms and Beyond: Capitalising on the Wealth of Notions. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richardt, Susanne. 2005. Metaphor in Languages for Special Purposes: The Function of Conceptual Metaphor in Written Expert Language and Expert-Lay Communication in the Domains of Economics, Medicine and Computing. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rossi, Micaela. 2017a. “Terminological metaphors and the nomadism of specialized terms: Some observations on intralinguistic and interlinguistic variation”. In Multiple Perspectives on Terminological Variation, ed. by Patrick Drouin, Aline Francœur, John Humbley, and Aurelié Picton, 181–211. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017b. “Some observations about metaphors in specialised languages”. In Metaphor in Communication, Science and Education, ed. by Francesca Ervas, Elisabetta Gola, and Maria G. Rossi, 151–168. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sager, Juan. C. 1990. A Practical Course in Terminology Processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sánchez, M. Tercedor, Clara I. L. Rodríguez, Carlos Márquez Linares, and Pamela Faber. 2012. “Metaphor and metonymy in specialized language”. In Faber, P. (eds.). 64–102. A Cognitive Linguistics View of Terminology and Specialized Language. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schultz, Theodore W. 1961. “Investment in human capital”. The American Economic Review 51(1): 1–17.Google Scholar
Shumeli, Arjan, Esmeralda Sotiri, and Rajmonda Novaku. 2012. “A comparative analysis of term-formation in the field of earth sciences: Terminologization and reterminologization”. ANGLISTICUM. Journal of the Association for Anglo-American Studies 1(2): 37–43.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. 1776. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London: W. Stahan & T. Cadell.Google Scholar
Temmerman, Rita. 1997. “Questioning the univocity ideal. The difference between socio-cognitive terminology and traditional terminology”. HERMES-Journal of Language and Communication in Business 10(18): 51–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Towards New Ways of Terminology Description. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “Metaphorical models and the translator’s approach to scientific texts”. Linguistica Antverpiensia. New Series-Themes in Translation Studies (1): 211–226.Google Scholar
Ureña, J. Manuel. 2011. Metaphor in Specialised Language: An English-Spanish Comparative Study. Granada: University of Granada.Google Scholar
. 2012. “Conceptual types of terminological metaphors in marine biology: An English-Spanish contrastive analysis from an experientialist perspective”. In Metaphor in Use: Context, Culture and Communication, ed. by MacArthur, F. et al., 239–260. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Bin. 2004. “Translation and games”. Journal of University of Shanghai for Science and Technology (2): 25–29.Google Scholar
White, Michael. 2003. “Metaphor and Economics: The Case of Growth”. English for Specific Purposes 22(2): 131–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Liu, Yujing & Xiangqing Wei
2023. From “three doors” to “one revolving door”. Terminology. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication 29:1 ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.