This may be yet another explanation for the

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: etween these abstract, metaphorically understood domains, are no longer unidirectional, thus allowing for complex interactions between them. Kövecses (2002), when discussing motivation of conceptual metaphors, stresses that some of the metaphors are experientially grounded, while others result from our soation in a given culture. This may be yet another explanation for the reversibility of source and target in some metaphors. Conceptual metaphor and its implications for discourse 23 2.3. The criticism of Conceptual Metaphor Theory Taylor (2002: 487-501) identifies a weakness of the Lakoffian approach to metaphor, that is its complete ahistoricism. Lakoff claims that all the dead metaphors are evidence of our metaphoric thinking. He in fact uses the term metaphor as an all covering term for figurative thought as represented in everyday language. He entirely disregards the rhetoric tradition and its typology of figurative expressions. In his theory, a distinction between catachresis and a novel metaphor seems irrelevant. Taylor’s discussion of the idiom spill the beans and the linguistic expressions representing the conceptual metaphor COMPUTER MALFUNCTION IS A DISEASE convincingly proves his point. Much of the criticism of Lakoff – Johnson (1980) stems from an inadequate representation of the views Lakoff – Johnson criticize. Moreover, CMT is presented as a completely novel approach, as if it had no links whatsoever with a long time metaphor research. Kardela (1992a and b) points to such predecessors of cognitive theory as Koehler (1935, 1940) and Guiraud (1976). He also stresses the similarity to the onomasiological approach to language developed by Baldinger (1984) from Ullman’s (1951, 1962) structural semantics. Geeraerts (1993) discusses the links between CMT and philosophical epistemology, in particular Husserl (1929) and Merleau-Ponty (1945, 1960). Jäkel (1997 [2003]) confronts CMT, the comparative approach to metaphor of Aristotle and Quintilian, the interactionist approach of Richards (1936) and Black (1962) and the pragmatic view of Searle (1993). Jäkel (1999) elaborates on the ‘overlooked’ German philosophers and linguists. Fabiszak (2005) compares the cognitive approach to metaphor theorists from various disciplines such as the French structuralism (Barthes 1967 and Cohen 1979), semiotics (Chatman 1979 and Eco 1976, 1986, 1988), philosophy (Vico following Eco 1986, and Cassirer following Krois 1979), and English structuralism (Ullman 1957, 1962 and Lyons 1977). A different attempt to place CMT within a broader background is a collection of articles gathered in Dirven – Pörings (2002). These articles try to connect two-domain and multi-domain metaphor theory (CMT and BT10) with Jakobson’s work. Jakobson (1956 [2002]) proposes a theory of 10 On the multi-domain approach to metaphor – Blending Theory, see section 6 below. 24 Chapter I mind, in which the major role is assigned to the metaphoric and metonymic poles of human thought. He sees the evidence for his claim both in language and in human behaviou...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online