what was the derivation of the word “houyhnhnm” according to their language?

• Original Paper
• Published: 12 January 2022

A War of Words: Dissecting the Foundational Claims of CMT

Axiomathes (2022)Cite this article

Abstruse

This work presents two theoretical challenges to Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT). The first argument shows CMT's foundational Conceptual Claim—that abstruse concepts are necessarily structured by concrete concepts—entails the blurring of the literal–figurative distinction, which calls into question the legitimacy of standard methods of metaphor identification used in CMT. The second argument aims at the Linguistic Claim—that conceptual metaphors are necessary for metaphorical language—by showing that conceptual metaphors are neither necessary nor sufficient for linguistic metaphors and that, therefore, the existence of conceptual metaphors cannot be validly inferred from the presence of their linguistic counterparts. In low-cal of the arguments put forrard, the CMT theorist is forced to accept one of four options: (A) hold on to both the Conceptual Claim and Linguistic Claim, by adequately addressing bug presented here, (B) discard the Conceptual Merits and surrender the theory, (C) discard both claims and give up the theory, or (D) accept the Conceptual Claim but turn down the Linguistic Merits and carelessness the methods of discovering conceptual metaphors through analysis of figurative linguistic communication. I argue that the only tenable option is D.

Access options

Purchase single article

Instant access to the full commodity PDF.

34,95 €

Price includes VAT (Indonesia)
Revenue enhancement calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

1. Some theorists resist talking of domains in terms of abstractness or concreteness (Grady, 1997) and prefer to use simplicity and complexness instead. I will use the terms 'abstract' and 'physical' hither for convenience, but I am not making whatsoever substantial claims by using these terms and the reader may choose to substitute them for 'simple' and 'complex', respectively.

2. Come across Gibbs (2017) where he devotes Chapter 3 to a discussion on metaphor identifying techniques and studies which employ them. He also covers the inferring of conceptual metaphors from linguistic metaphors in Chapter 4.

References

• Aristotle., & Heath, Malcolm (1996) Poetics. Penguin Books

  Google Scholar

• Bartlett JJ (2020) An expected error: an essay in defence of moral emotionism. Axiomathes. https://doi.org/ten.1007/s10516-020-09524-5

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Bartlett JJ (2021) Motivating emotions: emotionism and the internalist connection. Axiomathes. https://doi.org/x.1007/s10516-021-09550-10

  Article  Google Scholar

• Benczes R, Ságvári B (2018) Where metaphors really come up from: social factors as contextual influence in Hungarian teenagers' metaphorical conceptualizations of life. Cogn Linguist 29(1):121–154. https://doi.org/10.1515/COG-2016-0139

  Article  Google Scholar

• Bundgaard PF (2019) The structure of our concepts: a critical cess of Conceptual Metaphor Theory as a theory of concepts. Cogn Semiot. https://doi.org/x.1515/COGSEM-2019-2010

  Article  Google Scholar

• Casasanto D (2009) When is a linguistic metaphor conceptual metaphor?, pp 127–145. https://doi.org/ten.1075/hcp.24.11cas

• Crawford LE (2009) Conceptual metaphors of bear upon. Emot Rev 1(2):129–139. https://doi.org/ten.1177/1754073908100438

  Article  Google Scholar

• Evans V (2004) The structure of time: language, meaning and temporal noesis. John Benjamins Publishing Company

  Book  Google Scholar

• Fogelin RJ (2011) Figuratively speaking: revised edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–144. https://doi.org/ten.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780199739998.001.0001

  Book  Google Scholar

• Gibbs R (1994) The poetics of mind: figurative idea language and understanding. Cambridge University Press

  Google Scholar

• Gibbs R (2014) Why do some people dislike conceptual metaphor theory? Cogn Semiot 5(1–2):fourteen–36. https://doi.org/ten.1515/cogsem.2013.five.12.14

  Article  Google Scholar

• Gibbs R (2017) Metaphor wars. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107762350

  Book  Google Scholar

• Gibbs J, Colston HL (2012) Interpreting figurative pregnant. Cambridge University Printing. https://doi.org/ten.1017/cbo9781139168779

  Book  Google Scholar

• Grady J (1997) Foundations of pregnant: primary metaphors and primary scenes. University of California

  Google Scholar

• Haser V (2005) Metaphor, metonymy, and experientialist philosophy. DE GRUYTER. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110918243

  Book  Google Scholar

• Hills D (xxxx) Metaphor. Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphor/

• Horstmann K, Ansorge U (2011) Compatibility between tones, caput movements, and facial expressions. Emotion 11(4):975–980. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023468

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Keysar B, Shen Y, Glucksberg Due south, Horton WS (2000) Conventional language: How metaphorical is it? J Mem Lang 43(4):576–593. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2711

  Article  Google Scholar

• Kövecses Z (2010) Metaphor: a practical introduction, Second. Oxford University Press

  Google Scholar

• Kövecses Z (2020) Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108859127

  Book  Google Scholar

• Lakoff G (1996) Moral politics: how liberals and conservatives think. Academy of Chicago Press

  Google Scholar

• Lakoff Grand (2014) Mapping the brain'south metaphor circuitry: metaphorical idea in everyday reason. Forepart Hum Neurosci 8(1):958. https://doi.org/x.3389/fnhum.2014.00958

  Article  Google Scholar

• Lakoff G, Johnson Grand (1980) Metaphors we live past. Academy of Chicago Press

  Google Scholar

• Lakoff Grand, Johnson K (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its claiming to Western thought. Basic Books

  Google Scholar

• Leezenberg M (2014) From cognitive linguistics to social scientific discipline: xxx years after metaphors we alive past. Cogn Semiot 5(1–two):140–152. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem.2013.5.12.140

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Liao SM (2016) Moral brains: the neuroscience of morality—Google Books. Oxford University Press

  Book  Google Scholar

• Lycan WG (2008) Philosophy of language: a contemporary introduction. Routledge

  Google Scholar

• Lynott D, Coventry K (2014) On the ups and downs of emotion: Testing between conceptual-metaphor and polarity accounts of emotional valence-spatial location interactions. Psychon Balderdash Rev 21(1):218–226. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0481-5

  Article  Google Scholar

• McGlone MS (2007) What is the explanatory value of a conceptual metaphor? Lang Commun 27(2):109–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2006.02.016

  Article  Google Scholar

• McGlone MS (2011) Hyperbole, homunculi, and hindsight bias: an culling evaluation of conceptual metaphor theory. Discourse Procedure 48(8):563–574. https://doi.org/x.1080/0163853X.2011.606104

  Article  Google Scholar

• Meier BP, Robinson Doctor (2006) Does "feeling downwardly" mean seeing down? Depressive symptoms and vertical selective attention. J Res Pers 40(four):451–461. https://doi.org/x.1016/j.jrp.2005.03.001

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Meier BP, Hauser DJ, Robinson Doctor, Friesen CK, Schjeldahl M (2007a) What's "up" with God? Vertical infinite as a representation of the Divine. J Pers Soc Psychol 93(5):699–710. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.v.699

  Article  Google Scholar

• Meier BP, Sellbom M, Wygant DB (2007b) Failing to take the moral high footing: psychopathy and the vertical representation of morality. Personal Individ Differ 43(4):757–767. https://doi.org/x.1016/j.paid.2007.02.001

  Article  Google Scholar

• Miller KA, Raney GE, Demos AP (2020) Time to throw in the towel? No evidence for automated conceptual metaphor access in idiom processing. J Psycholinguist Res 49(v):885–913. https://doi.org/ten.1007/s10936-020-09728-i

  Article  Google Scholar

• Pragglejaz Group (2007) MIP: a method for identifying metaphorically used words in soapbox. Metaphor Symb 22(1):1–39. https://doi.org/x.1080/10926480709336752

  Article  Google Scholar

• Prinz JJ (2007) The emotional construction of morals. Oxford Academy Press

  Google Scholar

• Rakova M (2002) The philosophy of embodied realism: a high toll to pay? Cogn Linguist 13(iii):215–244. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.015

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Schubert TW (2005) Your highness: vertical positions every bit perceptual symbols of power. J Personal Soc Psychol 89(ane):1–21. https://doi.org/ten.1037/0022-3514.89.1.1

  Article  Google Scholar

• Steen GJ, Dorst AG, Herrmann JB, Kaal A, Krennmayr T, Pasma T (2010) A method for linguistic metaphor identification. In: Converging evidence in language and communication research. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.xiv

• Vervaeke J, Kennedy JM (1996) Metaphors in language and idea: falsification and multiple meanings. Metaphor Symb Human activity 11(4):273–284. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1104_3

  Article  Google Scholar

• Wierzbicka A (1986) Metaphors linguists alive by. Pap Linguist 19(ii):287–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818609389260

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Yu Northward (2015) Metaphorical character of moral cognition: a comparative and decompositional analysis. Metaphor Symb 30(3):163–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2015.1049500

  Article  Google Scholar

• Yu N (2016) Spatial metaphors for morality: a perspective from Chinese. Metaphor Symb 31(2):108–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2016.1150763

  Article  Google Scholar

• Yu N, Wang T, He Y (2016) Spatial subsystem of moral metaphors: a cerebral semantic study. Metaphor Symb 31(four):195–211. https://doi.org/x.1080/10926488.2016.1223470

  Article  Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to give thanks all anonymous reviewers for their helpful critiques on before versions of this paper which have ultimately helped to better the arguments presented herein. This work was conducted at Srinakharinwirot Academy, Bangkok equally office of a larger Ph.D. thesis under the supervision of Sugunya Ruangjaroon.

Author information

Affiliations

1. Faculty of Humanities, Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand

   Justin J. Bartlett & Sugunya Ruangjaroon

Respective author

Correspondence to Justin J. Bartlett.

Ethics declarations

Disharmonize of involvement

The authors accept no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Annotation

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bartlett, J.J., Ruangjaroon, S. A State of war of Words: Dissecting the Foundational Claims of CMT. Axiomathes (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-021-09612-0

Download commendation

• Received: 22 September 2021

• Accepted: 06 December 2021

• Published: 12 Jan 2022

• DOI : https://doi.org/ten.1007/s10516-021-09612-0

Keywords

• Conceptual Metaphor Theory
• Cognitive linguistics
• Cognitive psychology
• Abstract concepts
• Conceptual structure

alvarezcreeidell1956.blogspot.com

Source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10516-021-09612-0

Share this post