The lexical concepts are viewed as access points to

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: and thus be used with very little consciousness – as in what I have called discourse metaphors (Zinken et al. submitted). Zinken further develops his concept of a discourse-situated ‘figurative’ language use in cooperation with Evans (Evans – Zinken 2005). In their lexically based theory of conceptual projection, they draw a clear line between conventional uses of language, which does not require projection (though these projections may historically have resulted from them), and innovative uses. They also try to overcome the problem with stable between-thedomains mappings by positing that the projection obtains between lexical concepts (senses) rather than entire domains. The lexical concepts are viewed as access points to larger networks of meaning, both linguistic and conceptual. Thus the identification of domains and domain boundaries is no longer a problem. They do not reject CMT entirely, but rather add or renew its socio-historical focus, as evident in the following passage: … how can we explain regular patterns of elaboration? The development of the theoretical construct of ‘conceptual metaphor’ was supposed to account for the fact that it is conventionally felicitous not only that someone attacked my arguments, but also that I defended my claims, and in the end won the argument. Do such coherent patterns not require us to assume that there is a general mapping – ARGUMENT IS WAR – which ‘lies’ behind such utterances? We will argue in this section that large-scale models do indeed play a role in the elaboration of concepts, but that the patterns of figurative language is a process which unfolds in socio-historical time between speakers, rather than constituting a generalised pattern which is licensed by virtue of ‘underlying’ conceptual metaphors (Evans – Zinken 2005: 16). Conceptual metaphor and its implications for discourse 35 The authors show that the interpretation of the metaphoric expression depends not only on the conventional metaphor that may be or may have been underlying it, but also on its interaction with the context, which facilitates the appropriate profiling of the concept in question. Cameron – Deignan (2006) stress the need to focus on discourse analysis and corpus research in the investigation of the linguistic realisations of conceptual metaphors. They present a number of questions resulting from their research. For example, they show that linguistic metaphors are subject to lexical and grammatical restrictions. They refer to Deignan (2005), who discovered specific patterns of distribution of linguistic metaphors that cannot be explained by reference to the underlying conceptual mappings. For instance the plural noun flames is used more frequently about anger and love, while singular flame more often refers to faith and idealism and rarely to anger. Cameron – Deignan (2006: 674) claim that: … these questions cease to be problematic when a metaphor is no longer viewed as a systematic web of mental connections, realised through language in a uni-directional relationship. We argue here and el...
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