Aspect of Metaphor in Discourse

Abstract

Abstract. If we assume metaphors to be deeply entrenched correspondences between two conceptual domains that are manifested by highly conventional linguistic expressions in the lexicon, we cannot account for two aspects of metaphor that are crucially important. First, if we identify metaphors with isolated conceptual structures that ϐind expression in the lexicon, we cannot appreciate the role of metaphor in real discourse. Second, if we view metaphors as a set of entrenched conceptual correspondences that give rise to conventionalized linguistic expressions, it is not possible to account for much of the creativity of metaphors. The paper argues that we can, and should, go beyond these difϐiculties in conceptual metaphor theory. First, I argue, together with others, that conceptual metaphor theory must recognize the discourse-organizing force of metaphors. To this eff ect, I point out both the intertextual and intratextual eff ects of conceptual metaphors in real discourse. Second, I argue that there are several distinct types of metaphorical creativity that appear in discourse, including source-related creativity, target-related creativity, and creativity that is the result of "context-induced" metaphors. Of these, I discuss source-related and targetrelated creativity in the present paper.In recent years, a large number of scholars have criticized the theory of conceptual metaphor for a variety of reasons (for example, Cameron,

The President and the viper

“…Intertextual coherence refers to the coherence across texts, while intratextual coherence refers to the coherence within texts. Numerous cognitive linguistic studies dealing with figurative language, mostly metaphor, and sporadically blending, in real discourse (Musolff 2000;Cameron 2003;Charteris-Black 2004;Koller 2004;Deignan 2005;Semino 2008;2010;Kövecses 2009;2015;2018;Dancygier 2012;Berberović 2013;Semino et al 2013;Berberović & Mujagić 2017;Dorst 2017;Ritchie 2017a;2017b,) find that one of the main functions of metaphor (and blends) is to provide discourse coherence, either at the intertextual or intratextual level. The President and the viper: Political satire and conceptual blending theory a different perspective by employing a different but a compatible scenario, the author of the satirical text successfully maintains the intertextual links with the original statements.…”

A marriage of convenience or an amicable divorce: Metaphorical blends in the debates on Brexit

“…2 Kövecses (2005: 259ff) presents convincing arguments that both theories are capable of dealing with, what he calls, figurative creativity, each contributing to this issue operating within its own scope. Furthermore, the studies dealing with metaphorical creativity in discourse Kövecses (2005Kövecses ( , 2009aKövecses ( , 2009bKövecses ( , 2009cKövecses ( , 2010aKövecses ( , 2010bKövecses ( , 2015, Semino (2002Semino ( , 2008, Koller (2004aKoller ( , 2004b and Musolff (2000bMusolff ( , 2004aMusolff ( , 2016 show that CMT does not only deal with conventional metaphorical expressions, but it can deal with creative expressions. In addition, Fauconnier (2009) shows that BT is not limited only to isolated innovative examples but it can point out generalizations as well.…”