He also devises a methodology for topic target and

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: th ideational and interpersonal (…). Fiction is partly interpersonal an partly textual. Enhancing Memorability, Foregrounding and Informativeness, along with Textual Structuring [primarily perform] (…) Halliday’s textual function. Apart from situating CMT within Relevance Theory and functionalism, Goatly gives careful consideration to the processes of identifying linguistic metaphors in texts. In order to do so he proposes an exhaustive list of markers which signal that a metaphor has been used. He also devises a methodology for topic (target) and ground (tertium comparationis) specification. Reliable tests for metaphor identification have always been an important methodological issue. Goatly’s contribution is thus undeniable. Yet, a regular use of this comprehensive and detailed inventory of lexical and syntactic triggers, seems a formidable research task. Another useful strain of research introduced in Goatly (1997) is an attempt to show how contextual variables of a social situation influence the interpretation of metaphors. To do so, he analyses the use of metaphor in six different genres: conversation, news reports, popular science magazines, advertising, novels and poetry. His results indicate that the distribution of metaphor types within the different genres may depend on the purpose of the text, its discoursal tradition, the relation between the author and the reader of the text and directly related to the processing times available to the addressor and the addressee, which in turn are related to the Processing Effort. 2.6. Linguistic and conceptual metaphor – a terminological problem Dobrzyńska (1992), accepting many of the cognitive claims as a continuation of the structural and classical philological position in literary studies, 30 Chapter I rejects the levelling between the poetic and everyday metaphor. She insists that the use of the term metaphor is only justified in the meaning of poetic or rhetorical figure of speech (Lakoff’s novel metaphor). In other cases, different terms should be used, for example catachresis or analogy. Dobrzyńska does not seem to accept the distinction between metaphor as a linguistic expression and conceptual metaphor – a cognitive process which consists in a simultaneous activation of conceptual domains which facilitates the understanding of one thing in terms of another. Such understanding may underlie a variety of linguistic expressions, both these which we call metaphor and those which we cal analogy. Lakoff – Johnson do not claim that linguistic expressions cannot be classified in the traditional way. What they do is to claim that their functioning, as well as much of human social and cultural, non-linguistic behaviour can be elucidated through a conceptual process, which they call conceptual metaphor. Sadock (1993) represents a view similar to that of Dobrzyńska, advocating a stricter adherence to the classical terminology, which he briefly reviews. He stresses that … all of these types of figures [metaphor, irony, euphemism] are alike in that they communicate in an indirect way what might have been communicated directly in terms of the conventions...
View Full Document

This essay was uploaded on 02/24/2014 for the course LING 1100 taught by Professor Friedman during the Fall '09 term at Cornell.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online