Extended CMT Flashcards
What are image schemas?
Image schemas are:
- Fundamental cognitive structures that emerge from our sensory-motor experiences
- Basic patterns of understanding that develop before we form complex concepts
- Simplified, abstract representations, not detailed mental images
- Examples: CONTAINER, SOURCE-PATH-GOAL, UP-DOWN, BALANCE
What are the key characteristics of image schemas?
- Preconceptual: Form in early cognitive development, before language acquisition
- Embodied: Derived from physical interactions with the world
- Schematic: Simplified, abstract representations of recurring patterns in experience
How do image schemas relate to conceptual metaphors?
- Provide foundational structure for many metaphors
- Bridge concrete physical experiences and abstract thought
- Guide and constrain metaphorical mappings (invariance principle)
Give two examples of how image schemas underlie conceptual metaphors.
- CONTAINER schema → “IDEAS ARE OBJECTS IN CONTAINERS”
(e.g., “empty words”, “packed with information”) - SOURCE-PATH-GOAL schema → “LIFE IS A JOURNEY”
(e.g., “at a crossroads”, “long way to go”)
How do image schemas function in complex metaphors?
Complex metaphors often integrate multiple image schemas to create more nuanced meanings. This allows for richer and more sophisticated metaphorical mappings that can capture various aspects of abstract concepts.
What are the three main views on what limits metaphorical mapping, and how does the invariance principle fit in?
Three Main Views on Constraints in Metaphorical Mapping:
-
Lakoff and Johnson’s Invariance Principle:
- Primary Constraint: Target domain
- Key Idea: The target domain’s inherent structure limits what can be mapped from the source
- Example: “We’ve come a long way in our relationship” (✓) vs. “We’ve come 50 miles in our relationship” (✗)
- Function: Explains why some metaphorical expressions work while others don’t, even from the same source domain
- Focus: Maintaining logical consistency and preserving the target’s cognitive topology
-
Grady’s Primary Metaphors:
- Primary Constraint: Source domain
- Key Idea: Basic physical experiences shape our conceptual system
- Focus: Role of embodied experience in forming conceptual metaphors
-
Kövecses’ Main Meaning Focus:
- Primary Constraint: Both source and target domains
- Key Idea: Balanced interplay between existing conceptual structure and physical experiences
The Invariance Principle in Context:
- Definition: Only elements of the source domain compatible with the target’s inherent structure can be mapped
- Role: Acts as a filter, preserving the target domain’s basic structure
- Implications:
* Explains stability of metaphorical concepts across time and contexts
* Accounts for why some mappings are possible while others are not
* Ensures coherence and logical consistency in metaphorical mappings
Nuanced Understanding:
- Constraints likely shift based on context and familiarity with concepts
- In early learning, source domain may be more influential (aligning with Grady)
- As understanding deepens, target domain constraints become more prominent (Lakoff and Johnson)
- Advanced understanding may involve a dynamic interplay (Kövecses)
- Suggests a developmental trajectory in metaphor comprehension and production
- Highlights the need for a context-sensitive, integrated approach to studying conceptual metaphors
Key Takeaway:
Rather than competing views, these perspectives might represent different stages or aspects of metaphor processing, pointing towards a more comprehensive, dynamic model of conceptual metaphor theory.
What is a conceptual metaphor?
Understanding one domain of experience (that is typically abstract) in terms of another (that is typically concrete).
A systematic set of correspondences/mappings between two domains of experience.
Explain the process vs. product aspect of conceptual metaphors.
Process Aspect:
- CMs as active cognitive mechanisms
- Occur online during thinking and language use
- Dynamic, context-sensitive application of mappings
- Focus on how metaphors are used in real-time cognition
Product Aspect:
- CMs as stable conceptual structures
- Stored in long-term memory
- Part of our cognitive/cultural knowledge
- Focus on the systematic nature of metaphorical concepts
Implications:
- Research methods differ: online processing vs. linguistic/conceptual analysis
- Explains both systematic patterns and creative, context-specific uses
- Suggests CMs are both cognitive tools and knowledge structures
What are metaphorical inferences or entailments in Conceptual Metaphor Theory?
Definition:
- Metaphorical inferences (or entailments) are additional knowledge or logical conclusions that can be drawn from a conceptual metaphor, extending beyond the basic mappings.
Key points:
1. Based on knowledge of the source domain
2. Allow for richer understanding and reasoning about the target domain
3. Can generate new meanings and insights
Example:
- Conceptual Metaphor: ANGER IS A HOT FLUID IN A CONTAINER
- Basic mapping: Anger intensity = Fluid heat
Metaphorical inferences:
- Extreme anger can lead to loss of control (fluid boiling over)
- Suppressed anger can be dangerous (pressure buildup)
- Anger can subside gradually (fluid cooling down)
Function:
- Expand the explanatory power of conceptual metaphors
- Enable more detailed reasoning about abstract concepts
- Can lead to novel expressions and understandings
What are primary metaphors in Conceptual Metaphor Theory?
Definition:
- Primary metaphors are basic metaphorical associations that arise directly from correlations in our embodied experience of the world.
Key characteristics:
- Based on recurring sensorimotor experiences
- Typically universal or near-universal across cultures
- Form the building blocks for more complex metaphors
Structure:
- Source domain: Concrete, sensorimotor experience
- Target domain: Abstract concept or subjective experience
Examples:
- AFFECTION IS WARMTH
(Experience: feeling warm when hugged)
- MORE IS UP
(Experience: seeing pile grow higher when adding objects)
- KNOWING IS SEEING
(Experience: gaining information through visual perception)
Function:
- Provide grounding for abstract concepts in physical experience
- Serve as foundation for more complex, culture-specific metaphors
Theoretical importance:
- Explain commonalities in metaphorical thinking across cultures
- Support the embodied cognition thesis in cognitive science
Note: Proposed by Joseph Grady (1997) and integrated into CMT by Lakoff and Johnson
What is the typical directionality of conceptual metaphors, and why is it significant?
Definition:
- The typical mapping of conceptual metaphors from concrete (source) domains to abstract (target) domains.
Key characteristics:
- Source domains are usually more concrete, physical, or easily perceptible
- Target domains are usually more abstract, complex, or less directly experienced
- This direction is the default for most conventional conceptual metaphors
Examples:
- LIFE (abstract) IS A JOURNEY (concrete)
- IDEAS (abstract) ARE OBJECTS (concrete)
- TIME (abstract) IS MONEY (concrete)
Reasons for this directionality:
- Cognitive advantage: Helps understand abstract concepts through familiar, concrete experiences
- Developmental basis: Concrete experiences precede abstract thinking in cognitive development
- Explanatory power: Concrete domains provide rich structure for reasoning about abstract domains
Exceptions:
- Poetic or creative uses may reverse the typical direction for stylistic effect
- Some metaphors may map between domains of similar abstraction levels
Significance:
- Supports the embodied cognition thesis
- Explains how abstract thinking develops from physical experiences
- Provides insight into the structure of human conceptual systems
Implications:
- Influences how we teach and communicate abstract concepts
- Shapes our understanding of complex, abstract domains in terms of simpler, concrete ones
What are linguistic metaphors?
- Metaphorical expressions in language
- Surface-level manifestations of conceptual metaphors
- Examples:
- “He was boiling with anger”
- “She was burning with anger”
- “Smoke was coming out of his ears”
What is the relationship between linguistic and conceptual metaphors?
- Linguistic metaphors are manifestations of conceptual metaphors
- Multiple linguistic metaphors can stem from a single conceptual metaphor
- Conceptual metaphors shape our understanding, linguistic metaphors express it
How does etymology reflect early conceptualization in Conceptual Metaphor Theory?
- Etymology often reveals conceptual metaphors used in early understanding of abstract concepts
- Meanings of words often evolve from concrete to abstract senses
- This process reflects how humans use physical, concrete experiences to understand abstract ideas
- It demonstrates the creation of “metaphorically defined realities”
Example: “Comprehension”
- Etymology: From Latin “comprehendere” meaning “to grasp”
- Reflects conceptual metaphor: UNDERSTANDING IS GRASPING
- Linguistic manifestations:
- “I didn’t grasp what he said”
- “He’s slow on the uptake”
Significance:
- Shows how abstract concept (understanding) is conceptualized through concrete experience (physical grasping)
- Demonstrates persistence of conceptual metaphors over time
- Illustrates how language shapes and reflects our conceptual system
How do advertisements use conceptual metaphors to construct reality?
- Ads often create new “metaphorically defined realities”
- They apply conceptual metaphors to products or situations
- This can change how consumers perceive products or their own needs
Example: Deodorant advertisements
- Common metaphor used: BODY ODOR IS AN ENEMY
- Linguistic manifestation: “24-hour protection”
- Conceptual implications:
- Deodorant is a defender/ally
- Body odor is something to fight against
Effects:
- Creates a new way of viewing body odor
- Positions the product as necessary for “protection”
- May influence consumer behavior and product perception
Significance in CMT:
- Shows how metaphors can create new realities
- Demonstrates the power of metaphor in shaping thought and action
- Illustrates how conceptual metaphors are used in everyday contexts
What are the main ways conceptual metaphors are grounded according to CMT?
Two main types of grounding:
1. Similarity-based grounding
2. Experience-based grounding (correlation in experience)
Notes:
- Both types aim to explain why particular source domains are paired with particular target domains
- Grounding provides motivation for metaphorical mappings
What is similarity-based grounding in conceptual metaphors?
Based on perceived similarities between source and target domains
Types of similarity:
- Objectively real similarity
- Perceived similarity
- Similarity in generic-level structure
Example: HUMAN LIFE CYCLE IS THE LIFE CYCLE OF A PLANT
- Shared generic structure: entity comes into existence, grows, reaches peak, declines, ceases to exist
- Less common than experience-based grounding for primary metaphors
What is experience-based grounding (correlation in experience) in conceptual metaphors?
- Based on correlations in bodily or physical experience
- Often explains primary metaphors
Example: INTENSITY IS HEAT
- Correlation: When we engage in intense activities, our bodies often generate heat
Notes:
- Provides motivation for metaphors where source and target domains are not similar
- Considered more fundamental in CMT, especially for primary metaphors
- Supports the embodiment thesis in cognitive linguistics
How does the metaphorical use of words in sentences relate to their grammatical roles, according to Sullivan’s observation?
Key point: Grammatical role affects metaphorical interpretation
- Dependent elements (e.g., verbs):
- Often evoke source domains
- More likely to be used metaphorically
- Autonomous elements (e.g., nouns):
- Often evoke target domains
- More likely to remain literal
Example sentences:
- “The lawyer devised an argument” (literal)
- “The lawyer devised a house” (not metaphorical)
- “The carpenter devised an argument” (not metaphorical)
- “The lawyer constructed/built an argument” (metaphorical)
Explanation:
- Only the verb “constructed/built” is metaphorical
- Changing nouns doesn’t create metaphor in this context
- Verb as dependent element evokes source domain (building)
- Nouns as autonomous elements remain in target domain (legal argument)
Significance:
- Helps explain patterns in metaphor use in language
- Connects metaphor theory with cognitive grammar
What is cognitive grammar, and how does it distinguish between dependent and autonomous elements?
Cognitive Grammar:
- A model of grammar developed by Ronald Langacker
- Views language as an integral part of cognition
- Emphasizes the relationship between linguistic structure and conceptual content
- Focuses on how language reflects and shapes our understanding of the world
Distinction between Dependent and Autonomous elements:
1. Autonomous elements:
- Can be conceptually independent
- Often nouns or nominal expressions
- Example: “lawyer” or “argument” can be understood on their own
2. Dependent elements:
- Require other elements for their full conceptual realization
- Often verbs, adjectives, or prepositions
- Example: "constructed" requires an agent and an object to be fully understood
Relevance to metaphor:
- Dependent elements (e.g., verbs) more likely to evoke source domains in metaphors
- Autonomous elements (e.g., nouns) more likely to remain in target domains
Significance:
- Helps explain patterns of metaphor use in language
- Connects metaphor theory with broader linguistic structures
Explain transitive and intransitive verbs, valency, and their implications for metaphor analysis.
Transitive verbs:
- Require a direct object
- Example: “She wrote a letter”
Intransitive verbs:
- Do not require a direct object
- Example: “The baby sleeps”
Some verbs can be both:
- Example: “She wrote” (intransitive) vs “She wrote a letter” (transitive)
Valency:
- The number of arguments a verb can take
- Relates to a verb’s capacity to occur in different structures
- Examples:
- Zero valency: “It rains” (no arguments)
- Monovalent: “She slept” (one argument)
- Divalent: “She wrote a letter” (two arguments)
- Trivalent: “She gave him a book” (three arguments)
Implications:
- Affects sentence structure and meaning
- Influences how verbs can be used metaphorically
- Important for understanding verb behavior across contexts
Connection to Sullivan’s observation:
- In transitive constructions (Agent-Verb-Patient), verbs are more likely to be used metaphorically
- This may be due to verbs being “dependent” elements in cognitive grammar
- Understanding verb valency and transitivity helps analyze metaphor patterns in language use
How does morphology influence our perception of literal meaning in words?
Definition:
- Morphology in this context refers to the structure and formation of words
Key points:
- Words without obvious metaphorical components in their structure are often perceived as literal
- This perception may be misleading, as words can have figurative origins that are no longer apparent
Examples:
- “Anger” is often perceived as literal
No clear morphological components suggesting metaphorical origin
- “Heartbreak” is clearly metaphorical
Combines “heart” and “break,” showing emotional pain as physical breaking
Important note:
- The author challenges the assumption that words without obvious metaphorical structure are truly literal
- Many seemingly literal words may have obscured figurative origins
How do Lakoff’s and Kövecses’s views on literal meaning differ in the context of Conceptual Metaphor Theory?
Lakoff’s view:
- Concepts not comprehended via conceptual metaphor might be called ‘literal’
- Maintains a distinction between literal and figurative meaning
- Suggests concrete concepts serve as basis for understanding abstract concepts
Key characteristics of Lakoff’s view:
- Preserves a role for literal meaning in Conceptual Metaphor Theory
- Focuses on synchronic (current) understanding of concepts
Kövecses’s perspective:
- Challenges the extent of truly literal meaning
- Suggests even concrete concepts may have figurative origins
- Proposes extending figurative analysis to diachronic (historical) perspective
Key characteristics of Kövecses’s view:
- Reduces the domain of literal meaning significantly
- Emphasizes the pervasiveness of figurative understanding
- Considers both synchronic and diachronic aspects of meaning
Implications:
- Challenges the foundational role of literal meaning in metaphor theory
- Suggests a continuum between literal and figurative, rather than a clear distinction
- Raises questions about the basis for unidirectional mapping in conceptual metaphors
How does Kövecses’ view on literal and figurative meaning challenge traditional CMT?
Traditional CMT view:
- Abstract understood via concrete
- Concrete assumed more literal
Kövecses’ challenge:
- Concrete concepts often have figurative roots
- Blurs line between literal and figurative
Key points:
- Many “literal” words have metaphorical/metonymic etymologies
- Challenges clear distinction between literal and figurative
- Complicates explanation for unidirectional mappings in CMT
Implications:
- Questions role of “literal” meaning in CMT
- Suggests need for re-evaluation of concrete-abstract distinction
What is the difference between synchronic and diachronic approaches in Conceptual Metaphor Theory, according to Kövecses?
Synchronic approach:
- Focuses on current meaning and conceptualization
- Examines how concepts are understood in present time
Diachronic approach:
- Considers historical development of meaning
- Explores etymological roots and conceptual changes over time
Kövecses’ insight:
- Both approaches reveal figurative nature of concepts
- Synchronic: Many abstract concepts comprehended metaphorically
- Diachronic: Even concrete concepts often have figurative origins
Implications:
- Challenges notion of purely “literal” meaning
- Suggests continuity between historical and contemporary conceptualization
- Broadens scope of figurative understanding in language and thought
How does Kövecses’ view on historical comprehension via conceptual metaphor expand our understanding of figurative language?
Key points:
- Many seemingly literal words have metaphorical/metonymic origins
- Historical figurative processes often obscured over time
Examples:
- Book: From Proto-Germanic bokiz (“beech”), metonymy for writing tablets
- Storm: From PIE root *(s)wer- (“to turn, whirl”), metonymy for effect of event
Implications:
- Reveals pervasive nature of figurative thinking throughout history
- Suggests cognitive continuity between past and present conceptualization
Kövecses’ argument:
- Extending “comprehension via conceptual metaphor” to diachronic analysis
- Recognizes cognitive unity with previous generations
- Highlights figurative nature of even concrete concept formation
Significance:
- Challenges traditional views on literal vs. figurative meaning
- Expands scope of conceptual metaphor theory
- Encourages deeper exploration of etymological and conceptual links
What is Cognitive Grammar and what are its key principles?
Definition:
- A theoretical approach to linguistics developed by Ronald Langacker
- Part of the broader field of cognitive linguistics
Key principles:
-
Language as conceptualization:
- Grammar reflects conceptual structure
- Linguistic expressions evoke conceptual content
-
Embodiment:
- Language grounded in bodily and sensory experiences
- Abstract concepts often understood via physical experiences
-
Image schemas:
- Abstract patterns from sensorimotor experience
- Form basis for conceptual structure and reasoning
-
Construal:
- How speakers/hearers conceptualize linguistic content
- Includes perspective, specificity, focus, prominence
-
Usage-based model:
- Language structure emerges from language use
- Grammar is dynamic and context-dependent
-
Symbolic nature of language:
- Grammatical structures are meaningful
- Form-meaning pairings at all levels of language
Key concepts:
- Profiles and bases
- Trajectors and landmarks
- Mental spaces and conceptual integration
Applications:
- Analyzing grammatical structures
- Understanding semantic networks
- Exploring metaphor and metonymy in language
Significance:
- Challenges traditional formal approaches to grammar
- Integrates grammar with broader cognitive processes
- Provides framework for understanding language acquisition and use
What are primary metaphors and how do they function in Conceptual Metaphor Theory?
Definition:
- Basic metaphorical associations arising from bodily experiences
- Direct correlations between physical experiences and abstract concepts
Key characteristics:
- Based on everyday experiential correlations
- Involve concrete source and abstract target domains
- Often universal or near-universal across cultures
- Combine to form more complex metaphors
Examples:
- AFFECTION IS WARMTH
Physical experience: Feeling warmth when hugged
Abstract concept: Associating warmth with affection
- MORE IS UP
Physical experience: Seeing pile grow higher as items are added
Abstract concept: Associating vertical increase with quantity
Function in CMT:
- Serve as building blocks for more complex metaphorical thinking
- Provide grounding for abstract concepts in physical experience
- Help explain cross-cultural similarities in metaphorical thinking
