8/10/2019 Identifying Metaphor in Language

1/24

Identifying Metaphor in Language: a cognitive approach

Style, Fall, 2002(9/22/02)byGerard J. Steen

1. The Cognitive Paradigm and Linguistic Metaphor identification

One paradoxical effect of the cognitie t!rn in "etaphor #t!die# ha# been the neglect of the ling!i#tic analy#i#

of "etaphorical lang!age. $any "etaphor #cholar# hae concentrated on fle#hing o!t the pre#!"ed concept!al

connection# bet%een related "etaphorical expre##ion#, b!t they hae not really t!rned bac& to exa"ine ho%

and %hy %hich concept!al "etaphor# are expre##ed in the %ay they are in %hich context# of lang!age !#e. 'n

recent year# there ha# been #o"e i"proe"ent of thi# #it!ation, b!t the balance ha# #till not !ite been

ad!#ted (cf. *a"eron and +o% -eignan Goatly +ang!age of $etaphor# and Gibb# and Steen).

One of the rea#on# for thi# #lo% deelop"ent of an exa"ination of ling!i#tic "etaphor i# that it inole# a

tran#ition fro" one type of "etaphor re#earch to another. $o#t cognitie ling!i#tic re#earch on "etaphor "ay

be characteri#ed a# theory b!ilding, in %hich concept# and hypothe#e# are deeloped abo!t the nat!re of

concept!al "etaphor. o be #!re, #!ch theorie# hae e"pirical !nderpinning#, in that their a!thor# are caref!l

to collect "any ling!i#tic exa"ple# that corroborate their theoretical con#tr!ct#. o p!t thi# #lightly differently,

the#e are theorie# "eant to be p!t to the te#t in e"pirical re#earch. 'n that re#pect, they are not li&e the

her"ene!tic theorie# of philo#opher# li&e icoe!r or the analytical theorie# of philo#opher# li&e -aid#on.

o%eer, %hen #!ch cognitie1ling!i#tic idea# are act!ally te#ted in ling!i#tic re#earch, practical proble"# ari#e

%hich re!ire their o%n #ol!tion#. 'n partic!lar, the "o#t !rgent proble" i# the reliable identification of

"etaphor# in on1going di#co!r#e. 'f cognitie "etaphor theorie# are to be te#ted or applied to a!thentic

lang!age !#e, the reliable identification of ling!i#tic "etaphor# i# a conditio #ine !a non. For ling!i#tic re#earch

doe# not #et o!t %ith a preconceied #et of concept!al "etaphor#, b!t in#tead ha# to deal %ith #pontaneo!#

"etaphorical expre##ion# a# they are enco!ntered in concrete !ncontrolled lang!age !#e. here i# a decided

difference bet%een the po#t!lation of concept!al "etaphor# #!ch a# +'F 'S 3 JO456, +O7 'S 3 JO456,

3886 'S 48, and #o on, a# %ell a# their ill!#tration by %ell1cho#en exa"ple#, on the one hand, and the

technical identification in on1going di#co!r#e of expre##ion# pre#!"ably related to #!ch po#t!lated concept!al

"etaphor#, on the other hand.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2342http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2342/is_3_36http://www.findarticles.com/p/search?tb=art&qt=%22Gerard+J.+Steen%22http://www.findarticles.com/p/search?tb=art&qt=%22Gerard+J.+Steen%22http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2342http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2342/is_3_36http://www.findarticles.com/p/search?tb=art&qt=%22Gerard+J.+Steen%22

8/10/2019 Identifying Metaphor in Language

2/24

Of co!r#e, "any re#earcher# hae atte"pted to bridge the gap bet%een the cognitie theory of "etaphor and

the identification of ling!i#tic "etaphor in analy#e# of indiid!al text# and di#co!r#e, or, indeed, in their

deelop"ent of text!al "aterial# for experi"ental p!rpo#e#. o%eer, the#e re#earcher# hae all had to rely on

their o%n #ol!tion to the proble" of for"!lating an operational definition of ling!i#tic "etaphor. 3 "eta1

analy#i# of #!ch #t!die# "ight %ell be able to #ho% that there i# a good deal of ariation bet%een the#e

definition#.

3n explanation of thi# lac& of a reliable in#tr!"ent for "etaphor identification "ay lie in the t%o "ain tradition#

dealing %ith cognitie "etaphor. 8#ychologi#t# do beliee in the i"portance of reliable "ea#!ring in#tr!"ent#,

b!t, a# far a# "etaphor identification i# concerned, they hae not really needed one for their experi"ental

p!rpo#e#. hey can #i"ply adopt the #a"e #trategy a# the cognitie ling!i#t# %ho are in the b!#ine## of theory

for"ation, and re#trict the"#ele# to relatiely clear and pre1#elected ca#e#. *ognitie anthropologi#t#,

ling!i#t#, and poctician#, by contra#t, do not %or& in a tradition %here the reliability of a "ea#!ring in#tr!"ent

ha# to be eal!ated and reported. Scholar# %ho %or& on literary text# or on the analy#i# of "etaphor in

coner#ation, in partic!lar, are !#ed to #!pporting their "ethod %ith arg!"entation, often celebrating the

co"bination of analy#i# and interpretation rather than #eparating the" o!t in the #erice of achieing reliability.

3# a re#!lt, neither of the t% o "ain tradition# of cognitie "etaphor re#earch ha# deoted "!ch ti"e to the

reliability of ling!i#tic "etaphor identification.

%o ling!i#tic tradition# that generally do hae an intere#t in reliable "ea#!ring in#tr!"ent# are corp!#

ling!i#tic# and applied ling!i#tic# (arnden, +ee, and $ar&ert *a"eron and +o%). :hen large bodie# of

di#co!r#e are to be exa"ined for "etaphorical lang!age, it i# of para"o!nt i"portance to hae a reliable

identification proced!re. 3nd %hen ling!i#tic in#ight# are to be applied to i##!e# in lang!age learning,

tran#lation, text de#ign, and #o on, %e are dealing %ith a type of re#earch %hich i# al#o acc!#to"ed to loo&ing

at the reliability of the data. 't i# thi# ba#ically #ocial1#cientific attit!de to%ard# re#earch that ha# led to a

proect on the fea#ibility of a "etaphor identification proced!re in di#co!r#e (*ri#p *ri#p, ey%ood, and Steen

ey%ood, Se"ino, and Short Se"ino, ey%ood, and Short Steen ;Fie Step#,; ;eliable 8roced!re,; ;hetoric

of $etaphor,; and ;o%ard# a 8roced!re;). 't #ho!ld be noted that #!ch a proced!re i# not li"ited to ordinary

di#co!r#e< it "ay al#o be helpf!l in the e"pir ical #t!dy of literat!re, %hich e"ploy# corp!#1ling!i#tic and

experi"ental techni!e# in the #t!dy of literary di#co!r#e (Steen ;hetoric of $etaphor;). 3nd een le##

e"pirically "inded #cholar# of literat!re "ay find it !#ef!l in their critical analy#e# and interpretation# of #ingle

literary text# (cf. Steen ;3naly=ing $etaphor;).

8/10/2019 Identifying Metaphor in Language

3/24

he "etaphor identification proect i# ba#ed on the cooperation bet%een ten ling!i#t# coering #!ch area# a#

ling!i#tic#, #tyli#tic#, cognitie ling!i#tic#, p#ycholing!i#tic#, and applied ling!i#tic#. he "e"ber# of the gro!p

are, in alphabetical order, +ynne *a"eron, 3lan *ien&i, 8eter *ri#p, 3lice -eignan, ay Gibb#, Joe Grady, >oltan

?oec#e#, Graha" +o%, lena Se"ino, and "y#elf. :e hae coined the na"e ;8ragglea=; for o!r gro!p and

proect, con#i#ting of the fir#t letter# of o!r fir#t na"e#. :e hae done oint re#earch on "etaphor identification

in fie poe"#, one ne%#paper article, and t%o #tretche# of erbal interaction and hae had #eeral "eeting# to

di#c!## o!r re#!lt# and progra" for the f!t!re. :e hae achieed #o"e "oderate #!cce## in attaining

#ati#factory reliability for o!r #"all #a"ple of text#, abo!t %hich "ore %ill be #aid in the next #ection#. For

f!rther infor"ation, ' refer to the gro!p@# :eb #ite at http

8/10/2019 Identifying Metaphor in Language

4/24

any re#!lting difference# (or #i"ilaritie#, for that "atter) bet%een the t%o #a"ple# co"pared are d!e to the

nat!re of the "aterial# or to the bia# of the re#earcher#. 't i# #i"ply good #cientific practice to excl!de

"ea#!rer bia# a# "!ch a# po##ible, and a #tandardi=ed proced!re that prod!ce# de"on#trably reliable re#!lt# i#

one of the be#t "ean# to do #o.

$oreoer, there i# an intrin#ic intere#t in deeloping #!ch a proced!re. *ognitie ling!i#tic# pro"i#e# a !nifor"

and preci#e ie% of the nat!re and f!nction of concept!al "etaphor in lang!age. o%eer, if %e do not hae

one generally accepted "ean# to e#tabli#h %hat co!nt# a# "etaphorical lang!age in #pontaneo!# di#co!r#e, %e

#hall neer be able to f!lfil the pro"i#e of cognitie ling!i#tic# by proceeding to #y#te"atic te#t# of the

progra". 'n that ca#e, the cognitie paradig" %ill re"ain a theoretical po#ition, !#tly critici=ed by e"pirical

re#earcher# of other per#!a#ion#, #!ch a# $!rphy.

3n i"portant con#e!ence of adopting thi# #tandpoint i# the e"ergence of a f!nctional difference bet%een

technical "etaphor identification by the analy#t and #pontaneo!# (or elicited) "etaphor recognition by the

lang!age !#er. hi# di#tinction ha# be"!#ed #o"e cognitie ling!i#t# and poetician#, #ince ;%e; are all

#!ppo#ed to !nder#tand "etaphor in the #a"e %ay. o%eer, a proced!re for "etaphor identification #ere# a#

a technical in#tr!"ent of ling!i#tic analy#i#, proiding data on "etaphorical expre##ion# in different context# of

di#co!r#e for the p!rpo#e of their f!rther #cientific #t!dy in relation to #o"e re#earch !e#tion. hi# bear# a

ten!o!# relation to ho% people !nder#tand "etaphor. For that i# an i##!e %hich "ay preci#ely be the obect of

the "ore enco"pa##ing re#earch !e#tion, for %hich the ling!i#tic "etaphor# hae to be collected in the fir#t

place. o% people !nder#tand "etaphor# inole# technical "etaphor identification data pl!# other type# of

infor"ation abo!t an a#pect of people@# !nder# tanding of the#e "etaphor#, #!ch a# additional "etaphor

analy#i# in context, infor"ant !dge"ent# or behaior relating to the "etaphor#, and #o on. $etaphor

identification i# an in#tr!"ent to #t!dy #!ch pheno"ena a# "etaphor recognition.

Gien the#e preli"inary con#ideration#, the general theoretical fra"e%or& i# predo"inantly cognitie1ling!i#tic

in nat!re (e.g., +a&off ;*onte"porary heory;), b!t %ith a decidedly behaioral or #ocial1#cientific orientation

(Steen and Gibb#). ere are the "o#t pertinent a##!"ption# that %e hae adopted for o!r %or& (#ee *ri#p, and

Steen ;o%ard# a 8roced!re,; for detail#)