Conceptual metaphor theory: Some criticisms and alternative proposals

Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 168-184

  Kövecses, Zoltán ^a  

^a EÖTVÖS LORÁND UNIVERSITY   (Hungary)

Author keywords

Basic level vs. superordinate level; Bottom up vs. top down approach; Culture; Embodiment; Metaphor; Words vs. concepts

Indexed keywords

EID: 58149490865     PISSN: 15720268     EISSN: 15720276     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/arcl.6.08kov     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Alverson, H. (1994). Semantics and Experience. Universal Metaphors of Time in Tnglish, Mandarin, Hindi, and Sesotho. Johns Hopkins University Press.
2. Boers, F. (1999). When a bodily source domain becomes prominent. In R. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (47-56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
3. Clausner, T. & W. Croft. (1997). Productivity and schematicity in metaphors. Cognitive Science, 21(3), 247-282.
4. Dobrovolskij, D. & E. Piirainen. (2005). Figurative Language: Cross-cultural and Cross-linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
5. Ekman, P., Levenson, R.W., and Friesen, W.V. (1983). Autonomic nervous system activity distinguishes among emotions. Science, 221, 1208-1210.
6. Gevaert, C. (2001). Anger in Old and Middle English: a 'hot' topic? Belgian Essays on Language and Literature, 89-101.
7. Gevaert, C. (2005). The anger is heat question: detecting cultural influence on the conceptualization of anger through diachronic corpus analysis. N. Delbecque, J. Van der Auwera, and G. Geeraerts (Eds.), Perspectives on Variation: Sociolinguistic, Historical, Comparative (pp. 195-208). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
8. Kövecses, Z. (1995). American friendship: the scope of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 315-346.
9. Kövecses, Z. (2000). The scope of metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.) Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads (pp. 79-92). Berlin: Mouton.
10. Kövecses, Z. (2000/2003). Metaphor and Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor. A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in Culture. Universality and Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Kövecses, Z. (forthcoming). Methodological issues in conceptual metaphor theory. In S. Handl & H-J. Schmid (Eds.), Windows to the Mind: Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual blending, To be published in the series Cognitive Linguistics Research. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
14. Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. Lakoff, G. & Z. Kövecses. (1987). The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural Models in Language and Thought (pp. 195-221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor & Symbol, 22(1), 1-39.
17. Rakova, M. (2002). The philosophy of embodied realism: a high price to pay? Cognitive Linguistics, 13(3), 215-244.
18. Rosaldo, M.Z. (1980). Knowledge and Passion. Ilongot Notions of Self and Social Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Steen, G. (1999). From linguistic to conceptual metaphor in five steps. In R. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 57-77). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
20. Stefanowitch, A. (2007). Words and their metaphors. A corpus-based approach. In A. Stefanowitch & S.Th. Gries (Eds.,) Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy (pp. 63-105). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
21. Yu, N. (1998). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. A Perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
22. Zinken, J. (n.d.). Levels of schematicity in metaphor: basic level source concepts. http://www.port.ac.uk/departments/academic/psychology/ research/ecologycultureandcommunication/filetodownload,23361,en.fdf.