Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam, July 1997 (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Metaphor in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam, July 1997 ed. by Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr., Gerard J. Steen Kenneth A. McElhanon Metaphor in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam, July 1997. Ed. by Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. and Gerard J. Steen. (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series IV-Current issues in linguistic theory, 175.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1999. Pp. viii, 225. $72.00. The book consists of eleven diverse articles on metaphor. Noteworthy articles include Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano’s [End Page 605] ‘Metaphorical mappings in the sense of smell’, which rejects suggestions that the sense of smell is mapped metaphorically and proposes a process of property selection within an inherent structure that is similar to the concept of radial structure. Joseph E. Grady, Todd Oakley, and Seana Coulson (‘Blending and metaphor’) argue that conceptual metaphor theory (CMT) and conceptual blending theory (BT) represent complementary approaches that differ mainly in (1) the number of mental representations each allows (CMT—two, BT—more than two); (2) basic unit of cognitive organization (CMT—semantic domain, BT—mental spaces as scenarios structured by given domains); (3) strict directionality (CMT—yes, BT—no); and (4) the kinds of relationships they posit between mental representations (CMT—entrenched and conventional, BT—short-lived and novel). They propose a principle of BT, that a blend is based upon particular connections within the network of input spaces not upon a systematic mapping of one domain onto another. Noticeably absent, however, is a consideration of whether or not such mental spaces are grounded in ICMs (Idealized Cognitive Models) and, if so, how the ICMs might frame the scenes and contribute encyclopedic knowledge. Gerard Steen, ‘From linguistic to conceptual metaphor in five steps’, attempts to develop a procedure for identifying conceptual metaphors in discourse. The primary task of the linguist who wishes to describe and explain the structure and function of language is metaphor analysis, not metaphor understanding—a purely cognitive process. Nevertheless, his procedures are very much grounded in understanding inasmuch as metaphor identification ‘is fundamentally a matter of conceptual analysis’, and an ‘analysis . . . lays bare how metaphors can differ from each other with respect to important dimensions of conceptual structure’ (64–65). The proposed methodology seems complex, perhaps because it is bound to a theory that requires a propositional analysis of literal and nonliteral meaning and is designed to assist an analyst who is apparently not a native speaker of the language under analysis. Joseph E. Grady, ‘A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance’, explores systematic analyses of conventional and novel metaphorical expressions to discover ‘primary metaphors’, those fundamental, experientially motivated metaphors which serve as the basis for further mappings. Grady suggests two distinct classes of metaphors which differ in terms of directionality, ontology, and conventionality: One is based upon resemblance (rather than similiarity) and the other upon correlation. Four papers address the relationship between cultural metaphors and cultural models and claim that cognition is inextricably culturally-based. Raymond Gibbs, ‘Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world’, suggests that metaphorical mappings are grounded in embodied behavior which in turn is connected with cultural experience. Zoltán Kövesecs, “Metaphor: Does it constitute or reflect cultural models?’, claims that basic experiences select the appropriate, simple, generic cultural metaphors that constitute the cultural models that structure abstract concepts. Alan Cienki, ‘Metaphors and cultural models as profiles and bases’, adopts Ronald Langacker’s base-profile model and claims that metaphors are profiled against cultural models. Michele Emanation, ‘Congruence by degree: On the relation between metaphor and cultural models’, suggests that a scale of congruence may be useful in accounting for the varying relationships between cultural models and conceptual metaphors. Kenneth A. McElhanon Summer Institute of Linguistics Copyright © 2002 Linguistic Society of America