An Intersubjectivity-based Interpretation of the Cognitive-pragmatic Mechanism of Conceptual Metaphors

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2019.02.008

Abstract

Abstract: Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) is widely considered as revolutionary in metaphor studies. Nevertheless, due to its sole concentration on individual-internal embodied representation of metaphor, it somehow ignored the interaction between individuals. Therefore, its key theoretical claims such as the “unidirectionality of metaphorical mapping” and “correlation (as oppose to resemblance) as the motivation for metaphor” are challenged by other scholars. The present paper, based on intersubjectivity theory, analyzed the major types of conceptual metaphors. It turns out that the intersubjectivity-based framework can help solve some challenges for CMT: on one hand, it explains why all major conceptual metaphors are unidirectional when sometimes they don't seem to be; on the other hand, it provides an intergraded model for explaining all major types of metaphors, and resolving the correlation vs. resemblance controversy.

CLC Number:

H319

FAN Zhenqiang, GUO Yaxin. An Intersubjectivity-based Interpretation of the Cognitive-pragmatic Mechanism of Conceptual Metaphors[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2019, 19(02): 70-82.

References

Bergen, B. K. 2012. Louder than Words: The New Science of How the Mind Makes Meaning [M]. New York: Basic Books.
Bowes, A. & A. Katz. 2015.Metaphor creates intimacy and the temporarily enhances theory of mind [J]. Memory and Cognition (6): 953-963.
Dancygier, B. & E. Sweetser. 2014. Figurative Language [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R.W. 2013. Metaphoric cognition as social activity [J]. Metaphor and the Social World 3(1): 54-76.
Glucksburg,S.& M.S.McGlone.1999.When love is not a journey:What metaphors mean [J].Journal of pragmatics 31:1541-1558.
Grady, J. 1999. A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance [A]. In R. W. Gibbs & G. J. Steen (eds.). Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 79-100.
Hampe, B. 2017. Metaphor: Embodied Cognition and Discourse [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Handl, S. 2017. Selling and buying, killing and wounding: (Un)conventional metaphors from two different semantic fields [A]. In E. Gola & F. Ervas (eds.). Metaphor and Communication[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 61-78.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live by [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & M. Turner. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought [M]. New York: Basic Books.
Nuyts,J. 2001.Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3):383-400.
Ortony, A. 1979. Beyond literal similarity [J]. Psychological Review 86(3): 161-180.
Searle,J.R.1979.Expression and Meaning [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge Universitg Press.
Steen, G. J. 2017. Deliberate metaphor theory: Basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues [J]. Intercultural Pragmatics 14(1): 1-24.
Traugott, E. C. 2004. From subjectification to intersubjectification [A]. In H. Raymond (ed.). Motives for Language Change [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 124-139.
Thompson, G. 2014. Intersubjectivity in newspaper editorials: Construing the reader-in-the-text [A]. In L. Brems, L. Ghesquiere & F. V. Velde (eds.). Interjubjectivity and Intersubjectification in Grammar and Discourse [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 77-100.
Verhagen, A. 1995. Construction of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, D. & R. Carston. 2012. Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue [A]. In P. Hanks & R. Giora (eds.). Metaphor and Figurative Language [C]. London: Routledge. 361-390.
范振强. 2009.《隐喻中的语境和连接》介评[J]. 现代外语 (2):205-207.
范振强. 2018.论隐喻理论构建的参照维度及连续统——以“A is B”型隐喻为例[J].西南交通大学学报(社会科学版) (3): 78-89.
郭雅欣、范振强. 2018.语言夸张的认知语用机制新解[J].湖州师范学院学报 (11):84-89.
蒋勇. 2004.夸张性隐喻的梯级含义功能[J].现代外语 (3):274-281.
李福印. 2008.认知语言学概论[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社.
林书武.1998."愤怒"的概念隐喻——英语、汉语语料[J]. 外语与外语教学 (2):8-12.
莫嘉琳. 2016.向死而生的隐喻:隐喻性终结后的叙事[M]. 北京:清华大学出版社.
束定芳. 2000.隐喻学研究[M]. 上海:上海外语教育出版社.
沈家煊. 2007.汉语里的名词和动词[J]. 汉藏语学报 (1): 27-31.
文旭、高莉. 2014.交互主观性的构建:话语、句法与交际导读[M]. 北京:世界图书出版公司.
王寅. 2007.认知语言学[M]. 上海:上海外语教育出版社.
王寅.2009.国外神经科学最新发现对语言体验性的论证——十六论语言的体验性:模拟论语义学[J]. 外语教学 (3):1-6.

[1]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 35-41.
[2]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 72-81.
[3]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 82-91.
[4]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 92-96.
[5]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 97-102.
[6]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 35-44.
[7]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 45-52.
[8]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 61-70.
[9]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 96-103.
[10]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 452(2): 106-110.
[11]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 452(2): 84-95.
[12]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 452(2): 96-105.
[13]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 451(1): 61-63.
[14]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 451(1): 64-74.
[15]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 451(1): 75-85.