Conceptual structures of extended metaphor in political discourse


Abstract


The study aims at applying Kövecses’ “multi-level view of conceptual metaphor” to extended metaphor. This model gives the possibility to explain systematically, from a cognitive point of view, the interactions and the relationships of the multiple micrometaphors contained within an extended metaphor. The idea is that the metaphors within the extended metaphor share the same image schema and domain in a scale of metaphorical conceptualisations, which goes from the most schematic level to the least schematic one. It is at the level of frames that the micrometaphors within the extended metaphor differ from each other and show their connections, because they elaborate different aspects of the same domain. The connections between the micrometaphors not only contribute to give cohesion and coherence to the text, but also allow the speaker to articulate the speech in an effective and comprehensible manner, and the addressee to better understand the message conveyed by the metaphor. In order to give empirical substance to my claim, Kövecses’ model is applied to a series of extended metaphors found in everyday language and political discourse. In particular, to Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I have a dream” speech.

DOI Code: 10.1285/i22390359v54p95

Keywords: extended metaphor; conceptual structures; frames; multi-level view

References


Baicchi A. 2020, Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Bertuccelli Papi M. and Aru A. 2020, Lecture notes on irony and satire, Pisa University Press, Pisa.

Crisp P. 2005, Allegory and Symbol – A Fundamental Opposition?, in “Language and Literature” 14 [4], pp. 323–38.

Crisp P. 2008, Between extended metaphor and allegory: Is blending enough?, in “Language and Literature” 17 [4], pp. 291-308.

Evans V., Green M. 2006, Cognitive linguistics: An introduction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Fauconnier G. 2007, Mental spaces, in Geeraerts D. and Cuyckens H. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 371–76.

Fauconnier G. and Turner M. 2002, The Way We Think, Basic Books, New York.

Fillmore C. 1982, Frame semantics, in Linguistic Society of Korea (eds.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm, Hanshin, Seoul, pp. 111–35.

Goatly A. 1997, The Language of Metaphors, Routledge, London.

Grady J.E. 1997, THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited, in “Cognitive Linguistics” 8, pp. 267–90.

Hampe B. 2008, Image schemas in Cognitive Linguistics: Introduction, in Hampe B. (ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin/New York, pp. 1-14.

Heine B. 1997, Cognitive foundations of grammar, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Johnson M. 1987, The Body in the Mind, The University of Chicago Press., Chicago.

Kerevičien J. 2009, Glossary of Cognitive Terms, Kaunas.

Kövecses Z. 2002/2010, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, (1st edition 2002, 2nd edition 2010), Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York.

Kövecses Z. 2006, Language, Mind, and Culture: A Practical Introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York.

Kövecses Z. 2020, Domains, Schemas, Frames, or Spaces?, in Kövecses Z. (ed.), Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 50-92.

Lakoff G. 1987, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Lakoff G. 1990, The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image schemas?, in “Cognitive Linguistics” 1, pp. 39–74.

Lakoff G. 1993, The contemporary theory of metaphor, in Ortony, A. (eds.), Metaphor and Thought, second edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York, pp. 202–51.

Lakoff G. 1996, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Lakoff G. and Johnson M. 1980, Metaphors We Live By, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Lakoff G. and Turner M. 1989, More Than Cool Reason, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Langacker R. 1987, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Musolff A. 2006, Metaphor scenarios in public discourse, in “Metaphor and Symbol” 21 [1], pp. 23–38.

Musolff A. 2016, Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios, Bloomsbury.

Rezanova Z. and Shilyaev K. 2015, Megametaphor as a coherence and cohesion device in a cycle of literary texts, in “Lingua Posnaniensis; Poznan” 57 [2], pp. 31-40.

Rosch E. 1978, Principles of categorization, in Rosch E. and Lloyd B.B. (eds.), Cognition and Categorization, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 27–48.

Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez F. 2012, The role of mappings and domains in understading metonimy, in Barcelona, A. (ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at crossroads: A cognitive perspective, De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin/Boston, pp. 109-132.

Thomas D. (1962 [1954]), Under Milk Wood, Dent, London.

Werth P. 1994, Extended metaphor – a text-world account, in “Language and Literature” 3, pp. 79-103.


Full Text: PDF

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.
کاغذ a4

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 3.0 Italia License.