What is the Invariance Hypothesis?

Brugman, Claudia

doi:10.1515/cogl.1990.1.2.257

Cited by 32 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This process must first be somehow divided into segments each of which is conceptualized as a separate entity called 'thought' . What also needs to be emphasized is that the presence of a pre-existing structure of some abstract concepts was questioned by Brugman (1990) in the discussion of the Invariance Hypothesis (Lakoff, 1990;Turner, 1990).…”

Section: An Analysis Of Thoughtmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…… According to structure-mapping theory, analogical mapping is a process of establishing a structural alignment between two represented situations and then projecting inferences" (Gentner & Bowdle, 2008, p. 109;emphasis A.S.). 2 However, as Brugman (1990) argued, there are domains that do not have a pre-existing structure. Thus, I conclude, they cannot be aligned and as I demonstrate later in the present paper, there are also metaphors, for example, concrete-to-concrete and the so-called orientational metaphors, which do not have a structure in the sense of Lakoff and Johnson's (1980) structure in structural metaphors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The nature of domains and the relationships between them in metaphorization

Szwedek

2014

RCL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2011 I proposed a new approach to metaphor analysis and typology, based on the strict distinction between the material and phenomenological worlds. I concluded that the ultimate source domain (experiential basis) is the world of physical objects. The present paper develops these ideas, presenting a more detailed analysis of each of the metaphor types. Thus, I claim that the concrete-to-concrete metaphors are based on metonymy and abstract-to-concrete on the OBJECT schema. Abstract-to-abstract metaphorization falls into two traditional types: structural and orientational metaphors. As to the former, I show that the vague expressions "more concrete domain" or "more abstract domain" can be made clearer by considering the ontological status of the component elements of the domain: the "more concrete" domain has more elements of physical ontology. Orientational metaphors have been found to be only superficially orientational, their true objective being valuation. I conclude that all these metaphor types eventually refer to the world of physical objects for their experiential basis.

show abstract

Section: An Analysis Of Thoughtmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The nature of domains and the relationships between them in metaphorization

Szwedek

2014

RCL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The main constraint on metaphorical mappings seems to be the so-called Invariance Hypothesis (Brugman 1990, Lakoff and Turner 1989, Lakoff 1990, 1993b, Turner 1990. That is, if both domains share at least in part their image-schematic structure, then the mapping is possible 4 .…”

Section: Guidelines For the Application Of The Theories Of Metaphor Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for the application of the theories of metaphor and metonymy to textual examples

Sánchez¹

2007

THS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cognitive theories of metaphor and metonymy, in the author's view, present some minor deficiencies which have to be overcome if they are to be easily applicable in linguistic and literary research. Moreover, the researcher attempting to apply these theories must be given some clear guidelines helping her/him to decide as confidently as possible whether a given portion of a text is the expression of a conventional metaphor, of a conventional metonymy, or of both, and (s)he must also be able to identify the kind of metaphor and / or metonymy that is at work, and the kind of interaction between them. The article is, in its first part, a contribution to the clarification of some of the theoretical problems, namely those that affect the notion of metonymy, which has been less intensively studied by cognitive linguists, and those affecting the distinction between metaphor and metonymy, especially the one that derives from the cognitive notion of conceptual domain. The second part is a case study of a brief textual example, by means of which the guidelines that in the author's view should be followed in the application of the cognitive Aeories of metaphor and metonymy are briefly discussed and tested. The reader is assumed

show abstract

“…Conventional metaphors map very general 'image-schematic structure' between domains. Although the definition of 'imageschema' is somewhat controversial among cognitive linguists (see Brugman, 1990;Clausner & Croft, 1993;Lakoff, 1990), the term 'image schema' (Johnson, 1987) means roughly 'topological properties' as described in Talmy, 1977Talmy, , 1988b, that is, idealized abstract structures such as dimensionality, sequentiality, causality and physical boundedness. Lakoff & Turner (1987, p. 99) and Lakoff (1993, p. 229) distinguish conventional metaphors which map image-schemas from novel metaphors which map rich specific images.…”

Section: Metaphor As Cognitive Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…A third explanation may be relevant, namely a constraint proposed by Lakoff called the Invariance Hypothesis (Lakoff 1990; see also, Brugman, 1990;Clausner, 1993;Lakoff, 1993;Turner, 1990). The Invariance Hypothesis states that metaphors only map imageschematic structure found in the source domain and compatible with the target domain.…”

Section: Constraints On Metaphormentioning

confidence: 99%

Productivity and Schematicity in Metaphors

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The theory of metaphor proposed by Johnson (1980a, 1980b) and Lakoff (1993) involves a mapping of conceptual structure from one semantic domain to another. We investigate properties of these conceptual domain mappings by comparing them to morphological derivational relations. Schematicity and productivity are properties that Bybee (1985) and Langacker (1987) propose for characterizing morphological derivational relations, which we apply to our analysis of metaphor. Metaphors are argued to vary in their degree of semantic schematicity: Domain relations function as generalizations over specific metaphorical expressions. We also demonstrate three points on a continuum of productivity: Conventional metaphors are highly productive, metaphorically motivated transparent idioms are semiproductive, and opaque idioms are unproductive. Each point is compared with an example of morphological productivity having a corresponding conceptual organization. The results demonstrate that semantic productivity can be characterized in the same way as morphological productivity, suggesting that form and meaning are organized by the same principles.

show abstract

What is the Invariance Hypothesis?

Cited by 32 publications

References 0 publications

The nature of domains and the relationships between them in metaphorization

The nature of domains and the relationships between them in metaphorization

Guidelines for the application of the theories of metaphor and metonymy to textual examples

Productivity and Schematicity in Metaphors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About