This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
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 ) 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 ) 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