Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory (original) (raw)

2020, Metaphor and Symbol

In the book Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Zoltán Kövecses presents a holistic view of how conceptual and contextual factors influence metaphor production and comprehension, with a comprehensive review and evaluation of contemporary metaphor theories. It is mainly based on Kövecses's previous studies of "main meaning focus" (Kövecses, 2000, p. 82), of the tripartite division between the supraindividual, individual, and subindividual levels of conceptualization (Kövecses, 2002/2010), of the metonymic basis of correlation metaphors (Kövecses, 2013), of global and localcontexts (Kövecses, 2015), and of hierarchical levels of metaphor (Kövecses, 2017). In the preface, Kövecses makes the following five central claims: "It may be that there is no literal language at all. It may be that metonymies are, in a sense, 'more primary' than primary metaphors. It may be that conceptual metaphors are hierarchically linked conceptual structures on different levels of schematicity. It may be that conceptual metaphors are not only conceptual but also necessarily contextual. It may be that conceptual metaphor is simultaneously an offline and online phenomenon (i.e., it is not only offline)" (p. xii). In Chapter 1, Kövecses addresses key issues regarding Lakoff and Johnson (1980) Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT). He reformulates conceptual metaphor as "a systematic set of correspondences between two domains of experience" (p. 2). He distinguishes between three views about restrictions on metaphorical mapping: Lakoff's (1990) "invariance hypothesis" relying on the properties of the target concept; Grady's (1997) "primary metaphor"on the relationship between the source and target domains; and Kövecses's (2000) "main meaning focus" on features of the source concept. Furthermore, Kövecses differentiates between five kinds of hierarchical metaphor systems, in which generic-level concepts are elaborated by specific-level concepts in different ways. Finally, Kövecses introduces the core topics for discussion in the following chapters: (a) the demarcation between the literal and figurative meanings, (b) the metonymic basis of primary metaphors, (c) the organization of conceptual structures, (d) the contextual factors for metaphorical conceptualization, and (e) the online and offline nature of metaphor. Can concrete concepts be conceptualized figuratively? The answer is yes. In Chapter two, Kövecses argues that even many basic categories, such as basic level objects and spatial relations, are conceptualized figuratively rather than literally, with etymological evidence of their metaphorical or metonymic origins. He holds that "ideal" source domains for metaphorical conceptualization (such as SMELL), due to their experiential basicness, may be used as target domains. The view that both abstract and concrete concepts may be conceptualized metaphorically or metonymically is different from the view of unidirectional metaphorical mapping from the concrete to the abstract domain in CMT. In order to save the CMT view of unidirectionality, Kövecses divides a concept into an ontological part and a cognitive part. He explains that concrete concepts are more frequently conceptualized literally because "the ontological content predominates over the cognitive construal part," whereas abstract concepts are more frequently conceptualized metaphorically or metonymically because "the construal part predominates over the ontological part" (p. 32). Do correlation metaphors emerge directly from our basic physical experience or indirectly from metonymies? In Chapter 3, Kövecses claims that correlation metaphors arise from "frame-like mental structure" (p. 46) indirectly through a metonymic stage. In this view, a correlation metaphor emerges through a two-stage process. First, the correlation between two elements within the same frame (e.g., downward bodily orientation and sadness within the SADNESS frame) gives rise to the metonymic relationship between them (e.g., DOWNWARD BODILY ORIENTATION FOR SADNESS). Second,