Abstract
This paper looks at corpus- and survey-based evidence of innovative interpretative metaphor use that changes the default meaning of well-established figurative constructions. Specifically, we look at interpretation induced changes in the meaning of corporeal metaphors, on the basis of a corpus of British political discourse and a questionnaire survey of more than 1000 respondents from 31 linguistic backgrounds in 10 countries. The corpus-based evidence consists of metaphor-production data that show how situational variation in metaphor use can over time create a semantic-pragmatic drift that changes the dominant meaning of a conventional metaphor expression. The questionnaire survey reveals four distinct models for BODY focused readings (i.e. NATION AS GEOBODY, AS HIERARCHICAL FUNCTIONAL WHOLE, AS PART OF SPEAKER’S BODY, AS PART OF LARGER BODY), plus a further set PERSON-focused readings. The two most frequent BODY-focused interpretations, i.e. NATION AS GEOBODY and NATION AS HIERARCHICAL FUNCTIONAL WHOLE, as well as the PERSON-stereotypes versions show divergent frequency and elaboration patterns across the Chinese- vs. English-L1 respondent groups, which may be linked to specific cultural conceptual and discursive traditions. Both data sets indicate a strong creative element in metaphor interpretation, which accounts for a significant degree of variation in the creation of new metaphorical concepts.
Highlights
When and where is a metaphor created: in the production event when a speaker utters it, or in the reception event when it is interpreted by one recipient(s)? Is the speaker’s intended meaning the only meaning that matters for the receiver in terms of the utterance’s figurative status,reference and contextually relevant connotations? Does the receiver’s interpretation of the metaphor count as a mis- or nonunderstanding if it does not match exactly the speaker’s intended meaning? Or can it constitute a new figurative meaning, which may even be endorsed by the speaker subsequently? If yes, do we not need to view a metaphor’s meaning as variable or flexible, perhaps even in its production, i.e. in the sense of the speaker allowing for varying interpretations?
The bulk of questionnaire responses that followed after the first cohort soon made clear that there is no 1 : 1 match between the variation of institution- or geographybased interpretations of the NATION-AS-BODY metaphor and specific linguistic and/or cultural groups
One set consisted of ‘naturally’ occurring media texts, documented in a corpus that had been designed to show the high figurative cohesion in a thematically focused strand of public debate that resulted from the metaphorical slogan, Britain at the heart of Europe, which was quoted, recycled, alluded to and reinterpreted by public voices in order to emphasise their divergent and changing stances on a specific topic
Summary
When and where is a metaphor created: in the production event when a speaker utters it, or in the reception event when it is interpreted by one (or several) recipient(s)? Is the speaker’s intended meaning the only meaning that matters for the receiver in terms of the utterance’s figurative status, (target-)reference and contextually relevant connotations? Does the receiver’s interpretation of the metaphor count as a mis- or nonunderstanding if it does not match exactly the speaker’s intended meaning? Or can it constitute a new figurative meaning, which may even be endorsed by the speaker subsequently? If yes, do we not need to view a metaphor’s meaning as variable or flexible, perhaps even in its production, i.e. in the sense of the speaker allowing for varying interpretations?. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 2019, 23 (1), 23—39 look at interpretation-induced changes in the meaning of the CENTRE-AS-HEART and NATION-AS-BODY metaphors, using data from a) a corpus of British figurative discourse on European politics; and b) a questionnaire survey of more than 1000 students from 31 linguistic backgrounds. Both data sets indicate a strong production element in elicited metaphor (re-)interpretation, which goes beyond mere semantic extension of conventional metaphors. After surveying and analysing the evidence from both data sets, we will discuss their significance for a model of the relationship of production and reception sides in figurative language use
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call