Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton June 27, 2022

Metaphors are embodied otherwise they would not be metaphors

  • Sergio Torres-Martínez ORCID logo EMAIL logo
From the journal Linguistics Vanguard

Abstract

In an interesting paper, Casasanto, Daniel & Tom Gijssels. 2015. What makes a metaphor an embodied metaphor? Linguistics Vanguard 1(1). 327–337 introduce a skeptical view of recent studies into the embodied character of metaphorical source domains. According to the authors, there cannot be conclusive evidence on the matter thus far, since, for a metaphor to be embodied, specific simulations must be modality-specific and not simply restricted to modality-specific activity brain areas. In line with this, I argue that metaphors reflect a connection between perception, memory, and consciousness (embodied extended mind). The Embodied Extended Mind Theory (EEMT) introduced in this paper is indebted to Active Inference (AIF), a process theory for the comprehension of intelligent agency. EEMT defends the idea that language bears traces of nonlinguistic, bodily acquired information that reflects biological processes of energy exchange and conservation. Therefore, it is assumed that what makes a metaphor embodied is not only the relation between a source domain and a target domain in ad hoc regions in the brain, but the alignment of multiple independent systems during the (re)construction of events. Central to this is the idea that humans use stored perceptual maps, the combination of which permits us to manipulate concepts as part of complex event partitioning.


Corresponding author: Sergio Torres-Martínez, Escuela de Idiomas, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Antioquia, Colombia, E-mail:

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for insightful comments on earlier versions of this paper. I also want to thank Alice Gaby for valuable commentaries on the revised versions. My thanks also go to Tim Curnow for his fine editing of the manuscript. All remaining errors are mine.

References

Annila, Arto & Stanley Salthe. 2009. Economies evolve by energy dispersal. Entropy 11. 606–633. https://doi.org/10.3390/e11040606.Search in Google Scholar

Annila, Arto & Stanley Salthe. 2010. Cultural naturalism. Entropy 12. 1325–1343. https://doi.org/10.3390/e12061325.Search in Google Scholar

Barwise, Jon & John Perry. 1981. Situations and attitudes. Journal of Philosophy 77. 668–691. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026578.Search in Google Scholar

Becker, Selwyn W. & Fred O. Brownson. 1964. What price ambiguity? Or the role, of ambiguity in decision-making. Journal of Political Economy 72(1). 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1086/258854.Search in Google Scholar

Black, Max. 1954. Metaphor. Proceeding of the Aristotelian Society 55. 273–294.10.1093/aristotelian/55.1.273Search in Google Scholar

Camerer, Colin & Martin Weber. 1992. Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5(4). 325–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00122575.Search in Google Scholar

Casasanto, Daniel & Tom Gijssels. 2015. What makes a metaphor an embodied metaphor? Linguistics Vanguard 1(1). 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2014-1015.Search in Google Scholar

Da Costa, Lancelot, Thomas Parr, Biswa Sengupta & Karl Friston. 2021. Neural dynamics under active inference: Plausibility and efficiency of information processing. Entropy 23(454). 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/e23040454.Search in Google Scholar

Ehrsson, Henrik. 2007. The experimental induction of out-of-body experiences. Science 317(5841). 1048. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1142175.Search in Google Scholar

Ferstl, Ylva, Bülthoff Heinrich & Stephan de la Rosa. 2017. Action recognition is sensitive to the identity of the actor. Cognition 166. 201–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.036.Search in Google Scholar

Fodor, Jerry. 1981. Representations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Fodor, Jerry. 1983. The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Friston, Karl. 2009. The free-energy principle: A rough guide to the brain? Trends in Cognitive Science 13. 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.005.Search in Google Scholar

Friston, Karl. 2010. The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Review of Neuroscience 11. 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2787.Search in Google Scholar

Friston, Karl. 2012. The history of the future of the Bayesian brain. NeuroImage 62(2). 1230–1233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.10.004.Search in Google Scholar

Friston, Karl. 2013. Life as we know it. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 10. 20130475. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2013.0475.Search in Google Scholar

Friston, Karl. 2019. A free energy principle for a particular physics. Unpublished manuscript.Search in Google Scholar

Friston, Karl, Thomas FitzGerald, Francesco Rigoli, Philipp Schwartenbeck & Giovanni Pezzulo. 2017. Active inference: A process theory. Neural Computation 29(1). 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco_a_00912.Search in Google Scholar

Gallagher, Shaun & Dan Zahavi. 2008. The phenomenological mind: An introduction to philosophy of mind and cognitive science. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203086599Search in Google Scholar

Gallese, Vittorio & George Lakoff. 2005. The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology 22(3–4). 455–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290442000310.Search in Google Scholar

Gandolfo, Stefano. 2019. Metaphors of metaphors: Reflections on the use of conceptual metaphor theory in premodern Chinese texts. Dao 18. 323–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-019-09669-0.Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W.Jr. 2005. Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511805844Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W.Jr. 2008. Metaphor and thought: The state of the art. In Raymond W. Gibbs Jr. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 3–13. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511816802.002Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W.Jr. 2016. Metaphor, language, and dynamical systems. In Semino Elena & Zsófia Demjén (eds.), The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language, 56–70. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W.Jr. 2017. Metaphor wars: Conceptual metaphor in human life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781107762350Search in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W.Jr. & Herbert L. Colston. 2012. Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139168779Search in Google Scholar

Gibson, James J. 1966. The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Search in Google Scholar

Gibson, James J. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Search in Google Scholar

Isenberg, Arnold. 1963. On defining metaphor. Journal of Philosophy 60(21). 609–622. https://doi.org/10.2307/2023555.Search in Google Scholar

Jamrozik, Anja, Marguerite McQuire, Eileen R. Cardillo & Anjan Chatterjee. 2016. Metaphor: Bridging embodiment to abstraction. Psychological Bulletin Review 23(4). 1080–1089. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0861-0.Search in Google Scholar

Katz, Albert N. 1998. Figurative language and figurative thought: A review. In Albert N. Katz, Cristina Cacciari, Raymond W. Gibbs Jr. & Mark Turner (eds.), Figurative language and thought, 3–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195109627.003.0001Search in Google Scholar

Kessler, Klaus & Lindsey Anne Thompson. 2014. The embodied nature of spatial perspective taking: Embodied transformation versus sensorimotor interference. Cognition 114. 72–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.015.Search in Google Scholar

Kirby, John T. 1997. Aristotle on metaphor. The American Journal of Philology 118(4). 517–554. https://doi.org/10.1353/ajp.1997.0056.Search in Google Scholar

Kiverstein, Julian & Matt Sims. 2021. Is free-energy minimisation the mark of the cognitive? Biology & Philosophy 36(25). 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-021-09788-0.Search in Google Scholar

Kövecses, Zoltán. 2002. Cognitive-linguistic comments on metaphor identification. Language and Literature 11(1). 74–78.10.1177/096394700201100107Search in Google Scholar

Kövecses, Zoltán. 2005. Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511614408Search in Google Scholar

Kövecses, Zoltán. 2010. Metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 2008. The neural theory of metaphor. In Raymond W. Gibbs Jr. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 17–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511816802.003Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 2014. Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: Metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8(958). 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00958.Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar

Leipzig Corpora Collection. 2021. https://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de/en (accessed 5 June 2022).Search in Google Scholar

Linson, Adam, Andy Clark, Subramanian Ramamoorthy & Karl Friston. 2018. The active inference approach to ecological perception: General information dynamics for natural and artificial embodied cognition. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 5. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00021.Search in Google Scholar

Lupyan, Gary & Bodo Winter. 2018. Language is more abstract than you think, or, why aren’t languages more iconic? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 373. 20170137. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0137.Search in Google Scholar

Madsen, Mathias W. 2016. Cognitive metaphor theory and the metaphysics of immediacy. Cognitive Science 40. 881–908. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12320.Search in Google Scholar

Marvan, Tomáš & Marek Havlík. 2020. Is predictive processing a theory of perceptual consciousness? New Ideas in Psychology 61. 100837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2020.100837.Search in Google Scholar

Miller, George A., Eugene Galanter & Karl H. Pribram. 1960. Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.10.1037/10039-000Search in Google Scholar

Noel, Jean-Paul, Christian Pfeiffer, Olaf Blanke & Andrea Serino. 2015. Peripersonal space as the space of the bodily self. Cognition 144. 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.07.012.Search in Google Scholar

Ortony, Andrew (ed.). 1993. Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139173865Search in Google Scholar

Pearl, Judea. 1988. Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: Networks of plausible inference. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.10.1016/B978-0-08-051489-5.50008-4Search in Google Scholar

Perlovsky, Leonid & Kuniyoshi L. Sakai. 2014. Language and cognition. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 8. 1–2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00436.Search in Google Scholar

Ricœur, Paul. 1975. La métaphore vive. Paris: Le Seuil.Search in Google Scholar

Schaller, Franziska, Sabine Weiss & Horst M. Müller. 2016. Pushing the button while pushing the argument: Motor priming of abstract action language. Cognitive Science 41(5). 1328–1349. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12433.Search in Google Scholar

Semino, Elena. 2016. A corpus-based study of “mixed metaphor” as a metalinguistic comment. In Raymond W. Gibbs Jr. (ed.), Mixing metaphor, 203–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/milcc.6.10semSearch in Google Scholar

Speed, Laura J. & Gabriella Vigliocco. 2014. Eye movements reveal the dynamic simulation of speed in language. Cognitive Science 38. 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12096.Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2015. A constructionist approach to the teaching of phrasal verbs. English Today 31(3). 46–58.10.1017/S0266078415000255Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2016. Working out multiword verbs within an applied cognitive construction grammar framework. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 5(1). 1–32.10.1515/eujal-2016-0003Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2017. Applied cognitive construction grammar: A usage-based approach to the teaching of phrasal verbs (and other constructions). European Journal of Applied Linguistics 6(2). 279–314.10.1515/eujal-2016-0012Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2018a. Constructions as triads of form, function and agency: An agentive cognitive construction grammar analysis of English modals. Cognitive Semantics 4(1). 1–38.10.1163/23526416-00401001Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2018b. Exploring attachment patterns between multi-word verbs and argument structure constructions. Lingua 209. 21–43.10.1016/j.lingua.2018.04.001Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2019. Taming English modals: How a construction grammar approach helps to understand modal verbs. English Today 35(2). 50–57.10.1017/S0266078418000081Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2021a. Complexes, rule-following, and language games: The philosophical method of Ludwig Wittgenstein and its relevance to semiotics. Semiotica 2021(242). 63–100. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2019-0113.Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2021b. The cognition of caused-motion events in Spanish and German: An agentive cognitive construction grammar analysis. Australian Journal of Linguistics 41(1). 33–65.10.1080/07268602.2021.1888279Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2022a. On English modals, embodiment and argument structure: Response to Fong. English Today 38(2). 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078420000437.Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2022b. On the cognitive dimension of metaphors and their role in education: A response to Molina Rodelo (2021). Revista Senderos Pedagógicos 13(13). 1–18.10.53995/rsp.v13i13.1128Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2022c. The role of semiotics in the unification of langue and parole: An agentive cognitive construction grammar approach to English modals. Semiotica 244(1/4). 195–225.10.1515/sem-2018-0046Search in Google Scholar

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. forthcoming. A radical embodied characterization of German modal constructions. Cognitive Semantics.Search in Google Scholar

Turken, And U. & Nina F. Dronkers. 2011. The neural architecture of the language comprehension network: Converging evidence from lesion and connectivity analyses. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 5. 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2011.00001.Search in Google Scholar

Wachsmuth, Ipke, Lenzen Manuela & Knoblich Günther. 2008. Introduction to embodied communication: Why communication needs the body. In Ipke Wachsmuth, Manuela Lenzen & Günther Knoblich (eds.), Embodied communication in humans and machines, 1–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199231751.003.0001Search in Google Scholar

Watson, Matthew E., Martin J. Pickering & Holly P. Branigan. 2009. Why dialogue methods are important for investigating spatial language. In Kenny R. Coventry, Thora Tenbrik & John Bateman (eds.), Spatial language and dialogue, 8–22. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199554201.003.0002Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Ye, Diego Frassinelli, Jyrki Tuomainen, Jeremy I. Skipper & Gabriella Vigliocco. 2021. More than words: Word predictability, prosody, gesture and mouth movements in natural language comprehension. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 288. 20210500. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.0500.Search in Google Scholar


Supplementary Material

The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0083).


Received: 2019-11-24
Accepted: 2021-08-04
Published Online: 2022-06-27

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 28.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0083/pdf
Scroll to top button