Cutting and breaking metaphors of the self and the Motivation & Sedimentation Model

Abstract

Why are expressions of irreversible separation (e.g. I feel torn apart) used to speak about the self? Are they to be treated as metaphorical? We address these questions by using concepts and methods from cognitive semiotics, and especially the conceptual-empirical loop. We develop identification and classification procedures based on intersubjective intuitions, and apply these to data from a corpus of personal descriptions of traumatic experiences. To provide a principled explanation of these expressions, we employ the Motivation & Sedimentation Model (hereafter, MSM), which distinguishes between three interacting levels of meaning making: the Situated, the Sedimented, and the Embodied. On this basis we provide a definition of metaphor, leading to the conclusion that most instances of expressions in the sample would qualify as metaphorical, while affirming that metaphoricity is a scalar notion.

Carving the body at its joints: Does the way we speak about the body shape the way we think about it?

“…Ultimately, the apple of discord is tossed at the conflation of three different levels of language: the level of situated use, the level of sedimented conventions, and the level of prelinguistic motivations. We briefly describe these three levels of meaning-making as integrated in t h e m o t i v a t i o n a n d s e d i m e n t at i o n m o d e l (Devylder & Zlatev, 2020;Stampoulidis, Bolognesi, & Zlatev, 2019) before showing how the model brings the present debate under a new light.…”

The Linguistic Embodiment of Emotions. A Study of the Australian Continent

“…Another major metaphor is destruction. Body parts can be represented as plainly broken or divided, for instance, cut, split, cracked, torn, and so on (Devylder and Zlatev 2020). Destruction metaphors practically always map onto negative emotions.…”

Static and dynamic metaphoricity in U.S.-China trade discourse

“…MSM was created and developed by Zlatev and his colleagues (e.g., Blomberg & Zlatev, 2021;Devylder & Zlatev, 2020;Stampoulidis et al, 2019;Zlatev et al, 2021) in the field of cognitive semiotics, aiming to be applied to the sign systems of language, sign, and depiction. As a metaphor theory on language use in (poly)semiotic communication, MSM endorses the dynamicity and context-sensitivity of verbal metaphors (e.g., Devylder & Zlatev, 2020). In contrast to other metaphor theories, MSM defines metaphor as a "special form of sign use" in semiotic systems (Moskaluk et al, 2022, p. 305).…”

“…53-54). MSM endeavors to unify all the competing perspectives of metaphor study that appeared to be controversial and opposing, i.e., cognition vs. discourse vs. context approach (e.g., Devylder & Zlatev, 2020), as it integrates "universal tendencies", "extensive crosscultural variation", "context sensitivity" and "the dynamics of metaphor creation" in one model (Stampoulidis, 2021, p. 50). According to Devylder and Zlatev (2020), MSM distinguishes three levels (Embodied, Sedimented, and Situated) and links the three levels with two basic relations, i.e., motivation and sedimentation (see Figure 2.1).…”

“…The Embodied level of meaning-making only involves potential metaphoricity; real metaphoricity or actual metaphor use takes place at the Situated level as language use is "tightly dependent on" and interacts with contextual factors, such as "ongoing activities" and the "immediacy of communication" (Stampoulidis, 2021, p. 52). While explaining potential metaphoricity, Zlatev and his colleagues (e.g., Devylder & Zlatev, 2020;Stampoulidis, 2021) resort to the Career of Metaphor Theory proposed by Bowdle and Gentner (2005) to explain gradability (i.e., gradience) of metaphoricity: metaphorical similes or Direct metaphors and Novel metaphors (which are more likely to be understood as comparisons and analogical reasoning) have a higher degree of potential metaphoricity due to higher motivation at the Embodied level, while Conventional metaphors (which are more likely to be understood as categorization) have a lower degree of potential metaphoricity due to higher motivation at the Sedimented level 17 . Sitting in between, the Sedimented level operates on the level of "relatively stable, yet malleable, linguistic norms and structures, sociocultural conventions, and background sedimented knowledge, realized in phenomena such as intertextuality (discourse in different historical periods), ideology, history (as the memory and perception of events), myths and beliefs" (Stampoulidis, 2021, p. 52).…”