Title: Beyond Conceptual Metaphor Theory: Towards a Usagebased Account of Figurative Language
1Beyond Conceptual Metaphor Theory Towards a
Usage-based Account of Figurative Language
- Vyv Evans
- University of Brighton
- www.vyvevans.net
2Aims
- To develop an account of the range of linguistic
phenomena often described as constituting
metaphor and metonymy - Metaphor
- (1) a. Achilles is a lion
- b. Time whizzed by
- Metonymy
- (2) a. France beat New Zealand in the Rugby
world cup - b. The ham sandwich has wandering hands
- To highlight problems with the received view CMT
- To situate my account within a modern usage-based
approach to meaning-construction. This approach
is grounded in a novel approach to lexical
structure, and a concomitant cognitively
realistic account of semantic composition--LCCM
Theory
3Aims contd
- To address issues from workshop 1
- to operationalise the distinction between
figurative and literal langauge - to operationalise the distinction between
metaphor and metonymy - to account for systematicities in metaphoric
thought and language - to do so from the perspective of regular
processes of meaning-construction, semantic
change and language use(rs) - to do so while reflecting psychological reality
4My Claims
- Figurative thought makes use of the semantic
resources of the semiotic system in which it is
grounded, i.e. language--Imagining for speaking
(Evans Zinken 2005), rather than sub-symbolic
(i.e., language-independent) knowledge structures - The process of imagining for speaking is
contrained by embodied cognition (not determined
by it, cf. Lakoff and Johnson 1999) - Figurative language arises from regular
meaning-construction processes, which are, in
principle, no different from those that give rise
to non-figurative language
5My claims contd
- Figurative meaning derives from a
meaning-construction process, rather than
constituting pre-existing sub-symbolic knowledge
structures which are assembled - Figurative thought and understanding is a
consequence of the expression of situated
communicative intentions--a function of language
use
6Presentation Structure
- CMT
- An overview of LCCM Theory
- Metaphor and metonymy as access phenomena
- The communicative functions of metaphor and
metonymy - Whats not metaphor
- Comparison with the two-domain approach of CMT
- Workshop questions
- Summary
7Conceptual Metaphor Theory
- Figurative language is licensed by a system
of cross-domain and within-domain knowledge
structures conceptual metaphors and metonymies - Some of these knowledge structures are
universal (super-schematic schemas/primary
metaphors). Others (compound metaphors) are
language-specific. - In both cases, these knowledge structures are a
function of the embodiment of cognition (e.g.,
association between correlations within elemental
primary scenes) - Moreover, both kinds of metaphor are
independent of language, i.e., sub-symbolic - Figurative language is a function of using this
system of knowledge structures
8What this view leaves out...
- Emphasis on figurative language as an outcome of
a sub-symbolic knowledge system leaves out - The usage-based nature of figurative language
- e.g., The role of figurative language in
expressing communicative intentions, expression
of specific discourse goals (Nerlich et al 2004
Zinken et al., To appear e.g., discourse
metaphors) - The nature of conceptual evolution (e.g.,
Musolff, Nerlich, etc.) - The role of language as a semiotic system
(e.g., linguistic conventions for expressing
meaning) - The role of language in the construction of
meaning
9Some problems with CMT
- CMT relies (mainly) on linguistic evidence which
is increasingly distant from the sub-symbolic
knowledge structures it posits (Evans 2004a) - Received view of motivation for asymmetry between
target and source concepts/domains is cognitively
implausible (Evans 2004a, b) - Incompatible with much recent work on semantic
change (e.g., Traugott and Dasher 2002 Rice et
al. 1999)
10Some problems with CMT contd
- Out-of-date wrt to recent work on conceptual
representation (e.g., Barsalou 1999 Croft 1993
Langacker 1987 - Circular reasoning makes it difficult to falsify
(uses language to point to sub-symbolic
structures, which, in turn license the language
patterns called on as evidence)
11Lexical concepts for time
12Levels of temporal processing
- Temporal mechanisms and processes are central
to perceptual and bodily function. These are
hard-wired, and attributable to specific brain
regions and biochemical processes. - i) Microsecond processing sound localisation,
echolocation - ii) Millisecond processing speech
generation/recognition, motion detection, motor
coordination - iii) Second processing conscious time
estimation - iv) Circadian rhythms appetite, wake-sleep
13Embodiment and language
- CMT provides an oversimplistic view of language
and embodied cognition e.g., time derives from
event comparison - Embodied cognition provides a constraining
function on langauge qua semiotic system - exx. Time conceptualised as motion thro space
- -central function of many perceptual systems is
to detect motion, e.g., what and where visual
systems - -neurological mechanisms employ timing mechanisms
for perceiving motion events - -time is phenomenologically real, and correlates
with perception of motion - -elaboration patterns for temporal concepts is
not predicted by conceptual metaphors, and are
language-specific
14LCCM theory Assumptions
- Meaning is not a structure or structures which
can be assembled - --the received Fregean view of compositionality.
Meaning is a process or an act. - That is, words (and other linguistic units) do
not mean in their own right. Meaning emerges
from - i) the way in which words are deployed in
- utterances,
- ii) the way they prompt for and draw upon
- conceptual (or encyclopaedic) knowledge,
- iii) the way this knowledge is integrated, in
- service of the expression of speaker
- (communicative) intentions.
15LCCM theory Background
- The account of lexical representation builds on
previous work with Andrea Tyler (Tyler Evans
2003), and work on temporal cognition (Evans
2004). - The account of meaning-construction builds on
previous encyclopaedic approaches to meaning,
in particular Langacker (1987), Cruse (e.g.,
2002), and Crofts (1993) Domain Highlighting
model. - The account of meaning-construction is also
informed by joint collabortion with Jörg Zinken
in developing a unified account of figurative
language.
16 LCCM Theory
Lexical concept integration
Lexical representation
fusion
lexical concepts
cognitive models
lexical concept selection
integration
interpretation
An overview of the architecture of LCCM
Theory
17A Modern Account of Lexical Representation
- Semantic structure consists of representations
which are specialised for encoding conceptual
structure by making use of the symbolic resources
available in a communication-focused system such
as language - Two components
- i) lexical concepts, which provide access to
- ii) Cognitive models
18Lexical Concepts
- Lexical concepts are representations which
encode conceptual structure in a form specific to
language - They have a number of properties
- i) form-specific,
- ii) resolved and unresolved phonetic forms.
- iii) Combinatoriality (by virtue of fusion,
discussed later) - iii) A semantic network profile
-
19Lexical Concepts Contd
- iv) Each lexical concept has a lexical profile,
a unique biometric identifier consisting of
semantic and formal selectional tendencies - v) Semantic value
- a. Informational characterisation (afford
access to non-linguistic conceptual structure,
aka cognitive models) - b. Encapsulation (serve to define an idea)
- c. Relationality (non-relational vs
relational) - d. Temporal structure, aka mode of access (of
relational lexical concepts) - e. Referentiality (denotational vs deictic vs
anaphoric)
20Examples Licensed by Lexical Concepts
- (1) a. The relationship lasted a long
time duration - b. The time for a decision has come moment
- c. Her time death has come event
- d. British Summer Time begins
today measurement-system -
- (2) a. The picture is over the sofa above
- b. The picture is over the hole covering
- c. The government handed over power transfer
- d. She has a strange power over me control
-
- (3) a. The plane/bird is flying (in the
sky) self-propelled aerodynamic motion - b. The pilot is flying the plane (in the sky)
operation by agent of entity capable - of aerodynamic motion
- c. The child is flying the kite (in the
breeze) control of lightweight entity by - agent
- d. The flag is flying (in the
breeze) suspension of lightweight object
21Cognitive Models
- Lexical concepts provide access to cognitive
models - Cognitive models are multi-modal knowledge
structures, they are i) stable, yet ii) yet
continuously updated (so not rigid), iii) they
form the basis for categorisation judgements, and
give rise to experiential simulations and
conceptualisation (cf. Barsalou, Prinz, Zwaan,
etc.). - Lexical concepts, can, in conjunction with
compositional processes, facilitate access routes
through cognitive model profile thus they
provide semantic potential - Cognitive models consist of i) attributes (or
facets), - ii) relations (or structural invariants)
22(No Transcript)
23Meaning Construction
- Meaning construction involves the combination of
lexical concepts - These representations are integrated in service
of providing a conception, a situated meaning
which expresses a specific communicative
intention associated with the speaker - Meaning construction proceeds by virtue of two
component processes - i) Selection of lexical concepts
- ii) Fusion integration and interpretation of
lexical concepts
24Selection and Fusion
- i) Selection The process in which
extra- linguistic and linguistic context
selects for a particular lexical concept
associated with the specific forms which appear
in an utterance. - ex. She approached the bar (public house
vs.court of law) - ii) Fusion The process whereby once selected,
lexical concepts are integrated and interpreted,
in the service of meaning-construction. - Two component processes
- i) integration John baked Sally a cake
- ii) interpretation red pen vs red
squirrel
25Access
- Access a general process of interpretation,
mediated by language, which serves to selectively
activate part of the semantic potential
(cognitive model profile), giving rise to an
informational characterisation associated with a
given lexical concept - Two types of activation
- i) access route--across a number of cognitive
models - ii) within a cognitive model--highlighting (e.g.,
access to a specific facet)
26tome
text
duration
level of interest
Level of facets
a. Thats a
heavy book to carry around in your school bag all
day b. That antiquarian book is so old that it
is illegible in places c. That book is really
long d. That book is really boring
Level of cognitive models
reading
book
reader
Level of lexical concepts
book
27Metaphor and Metonymy
- Literal vs. figurative language
- metaphor and metonymy are distinct from literal
language in terms of the kind of access they
provide wrt encyclopaedic knowledge
structures--primary vs. secondary cognitive
models - Metaphor vs. metonymy
- They are distinct in terms of the compositional
processes involved Metonymy (selection
interpretation), metaphor (integration
interpretation) - ex. Proust spent alot of time in bed vs. Proust
is tough to read - Mary is a pianist vs Mary is a lion
- Metaphor vs metonymy
- - Distinct in terms of communicative function
Metonymy--referential (identification)
metaphor--elaboration (aboutness)
28Access Phenomenon Metonymy
- Meaning-construction employs activation of
secondary cognitive models in order to achieve
local communicative intentions - Secondary access that results in metonymy is
due to an informational characteriation which
avoids a clash in a lexical concepts primary
cognitive model profile of a given lexical
concept, - (1) Proust is tough to read
- (2) France rejected the EU constitution
- For this reason, this sort of secondary access
involves a shift in reference
29(No Transcript)
30Access Phenomenon Metaphor
- Secondary access that results in metaphor is
due to integration of lexical concepts such that
the lexical concept which affords secondary
access is interpreted as being about another
lexical concept, e.g., the subject. - This aboutness relation I also refer to as
elaboration (see Evans 2004a). - Metaphoric elaboration is a consequence of the
lexical concept associated with the predicate
clashing in its primary cognitive model profile
with the primary cognitive model profile of the
subject - (1) The time whizzed by
- (2) Achilles is a lion
31Partial cognitive model profile for rapid
motion with noise
(lack of) perceptual access
- rapid motion with noise
- The time whizzed by
noise
physical entity
(rapid) motion
32Partial cognitive model profile for lion
(Ascription of) bravery
patterns of behaviour
diet/eating habits
social grouping
habitat
lion
33Communicative Functions of Figurative Language
- The secondary access phenomenon involving
elaboration (metaphor) serves situated
communicative intentions, e.g., a description, an
evaluation etc. (Zinken et al. In press) - The resulting conception is distinct from a
literal paraphrase (cf. Sperber and Wilson
1995), due to the access route - (1) This room is a pigsty
- (2) Frankenfood (to describe GM produce)
- Metonymy provides a contextually salient
means of identifying a particular referent - (3) The ham sandwich has wandering hands
- (one waitress to another)
34Whats NOT Figurative Language
- Certain forms of elaboration, do not involve
secondary access, and are therefore not
metaphoric - (1) a long time long/EXTENDED
DURATION - (2) a loud shirt loud/ ATTRACT
INVOLUNTARY ATTENTION - (3) Shakespeare is in love in/STATE
- Each of these examples involves lexical
concepts which do not clash in their primary
cognitive model profiles - These lexical concepts, e.g., STATE lexical
concept for in, have arisen through regular
usage-based processes of semantic change
(Traugott and Dasher, Tyler and Evans) - Such patterns I term concept collocations
elaborations which provide a conventional
conception
35Where do systematicities come from?
- Exx. conceptualisation of time as motion through
space - Distinct lexical concepts cohere in semantic
network profiles - Related concepts form part of same cognitive
model profile, e.g., points of access in same
matrix - Concept collocations, e.g., The time whizzed by,
give rise new lexical concepts, whizz by with a
temporal representation, which can be applied to
other temporal concepts Christmas whizzed by
this year
36Comparison with CMT
- Advantages of this model
- i) Figurative language is a consequence of
regular processes of meaning construction, thus a
unified treatment of literal and figurative
language - ii) Reformulate sub-symbolic knowledge
structures, conceptual metaphors, in terms of
encyclopaedic knowledge structures, cognitive
models profiles, for which there is now
widespread support, theoretically and empirically
(e.g., Langacker, Barsalou, etc.) - iii) Treat figurative language as a function of
situated language use, and thus integrate
figurative language with a usage-based view of
meaning-construction - iv) Metaphor and metonymy, on this account have
specific communicative goals (e.g., Zinken et al)
37Workshop Questions
- Q1 How does the theory explain connection
between what people think say? - Imagining for speaking-conceptual resources
specialised for encoding in language - Q2 What does the theory impose on data analysis?
- Usage-based data context and communicative
intentions are key avoid artificial
(expert-based) distinction, itself problematic,
between basic and incongruous senses
38Workshop question contd
- Q3 What does it disallow as evidence of
figurative thinking? - Abstract concepts/domains not directly supported
by linguistic evidence (as in CMT and primary
metaphor theory) - Q4 How does the approach identify issues in
metaphor methodology? - Metaphor and metonymy identification, based on
meaning-construction - Distinguish between metaphor (dynamic instances
of figurative thought) and conventional patterns
of language use
39Summary
- Figurative language is not deviant with respect
to literal language but makes use of the same
processes of lexical representation and meaning
construction - Ive presented a usage-based, encyclopaedic
account of figurative language which treats
metaphor and metonymy as resulting from
differential access, wrt literal language - The distinction between metaphor and metonymy is
due to the compositional processes of selection
vs. integration - The old two-domain mapping model is
oversimplistic and fails to account for
context/communicative aspects - A final Caveat LCCM theory is programmatic, and
awaits psycholinguistic (i.e., empirical)
investigation
40- Articles
- Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models and
Meaning-Construction. 2006. Cognitive
Linguistics, 17/4, 491-534. - Figurative Language in a Cognitive Theory of
Meaning Construction A Lexical Concepts and
Cognitive Models Approach. (with Jörg Zinken).
To appear in C. Makris and R. Chrisley (eds),
Art, Body and Embodiement. Cambridge Scholars
Press. - Book
- How Words Mean. In prep. and under contract to
OUP. - www.vyvevans.net